Patents and Utility Models in Turkey

Technical inventions are protected in Turkey by patents and utility models. The legal basis is the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (SMK), which has aligned Turkish patent law largely with the European Patent Convention (EPC) and international standards. Since Turkey is an EPC contracting state, European patents can be validated with effect for Turkey – for German and Austrian companies the most important route to protection in practice. This article provides an overview of protection requirements, procedures, employee inventions and enforcement.

Table of contents

• What is patentable?
• Which routes lead to a patent with effect in Turkey?
• How does the national grant procedure work?
• What is the utility model and when is it useful?
• What rights does the patent confer and where are its limits?
• Who owns inventions made by employees?
• How are patents exploited: assignment, licence and register entry?
• What special features apply to pharma and life sciences?
• How do invalidity and infringement proceedings work?
• What should be known about costs, duration and litigation tactics?
• What should foreign companies bear in mind in practice?
• Why does litigation strategy decide the outcome of patent cases? An example from practice
• Conclusion

What is patentable?

Patents are granted for inventions in all fields of technology that are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. Discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, schemes and business methods as well as computer programs and presentations of information "as such" are not regarded as inventions – however, software-related inventions with a technical contribution remain patentable under an interpretation modelled on European practice. Also excluded from patentability are inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality, as well as certain biotechnological subject matter and methods of treatment of the human or animal body. Novelty is assessed on an absolute, worldwide basis; a twelve-month grace period exists for certain disclosures originating from the inventor.

Which routes lead to a patent with effect in Turkey?

National application: Direct filing with TÜRKPATENT, suitable for Turkish first filings and targeted country protection.

European patent with validation: Turkey has been an EPC contracting state since 2000. A patent granted by the European Patent Office can be validated in Turkey by filing the Turkish translation within the prescribed period and then has the same effect as a national patent. Note that Turkey does not participate in the Unitary Patent; the Unitary Patent does not cover Turkey, so validation must be effected separately.

International PCT application: Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, Turkey can be designated and the national phase initiated before TÜRKPATENT.

For the protection strategy of German companies, EPC validation is the standard route; the deadlines for translation and fee payment should be included in the portfolio's validation management.

How does the national grant procedure work?

After filing and formal examination, TÜRKPATENT draws up the search report upon request and subsequently the examination report; Code No. 6769 abolished the former unexamined "petty patent", so every Turkish patent now undergoes substantive examination. The application is published after eighteen months. Granted patents may be opposed before the Office within six months of publication of the grant – a cost-effective attack instrument newly introduced by Code No. 6769, decided by the Re-examination and Evaluation Board. The term of protection is twenty years from the filing date and cannot be extended; annual fees must be paid to maintain the patent, and failure to pay – subject to the re-establishment mechanisms – leads to lapse.

What is the utility model and when is it useful?

The utility model ("faydalı model") protects inventions that are new and industrially applicable; unlike the patent, an inventive step is not required. Processes, chemical and biological substances as well as pharmaceutical products and processes are excluded from utility model protection. The term of protection is ten years from the filing date. The grant procedure is faster and cheaper: a search report is drawn up, but there is no substantive examination of inventive step. The utility model is thus suitable for incremental product improvements with shorter life cycles; its resilience in litigation is, however, lower, since the lack of examination increases the attack surface in invalidity proceedings. Applications can be converted between patent and utility model under certain conditions.

What rights does the patent confer and where are its limits?

The patent confers the exclusive right to prohibit third parties from manufacturing, selling, using, importing or possessing the protected product for commercial purposes, as well as from applying the protected process and marketing products obtained directly by that process. Limits of protection include acts done privately, experimental acts including regulatory trials for generics (the "Bolar exemption"), continued use by good-faith prior users, and exhaustion of the right after the product has been placed on the market. For process patents concerning new products, the burden of proof is reversed in favour of the patentee. Compulsory licences are provided for in narrowly defined cases – for instance non-working or the public interest.

Who owns inventions made by employees?

Service inventions ("hizmet buluşu") – made by the employee in performance of work duties or based predominantly on the experience and resources of the business – must be reported to the employer in writing without delay; the employer may claim the invention in full or in part by declaration. Upon full claim, the rights pass to the employer and the employee is entitled to reasonable compensation, assessed in accordance with the applicable regulation. Free inventions ("serbest buluş") remain with the employee but are subject to notification and offering duties. Contractual clauses curtailing the employee inventor's mandatory rights are invalid. For details, see the separate article on employee inventions.

How are patents exploited: assignment, licence and register entry?

Patents and patent applications can be assigned, licensed and pledged; they may be contributed to companies in kind. Assignments require written form for validity; effectiveness against third parties acting in good faith depends on recordal in the TÜRKPATENT register – in intra-group restructurings and portfolio transactions, the Turkish register entry is frequently overlooked in practice and should be included in every closing checklist. Licences are governed by the rules described in the separate article; recordal likewise secures the continued existence of the licence upon a later change of ownership.

What special features apply to pharma and life sciences?

Important for research-based pharmaceutical companies: Turkish law does not provide for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) modelled on EU law that would extend the patent term for regulatory delays – effective exclusivity ends with the twenty years of the basic patent. Regulatory data protection for marketing authorisation dossiers is regulated separately and limited in time; the "Bolar exemption" allows generic manufacturers to conduct authorisation work during the patent term. Patent strategies for the Turkish market must factor in these deviations from the EU framework – shorter effective exclusivity, early generic preparation – which makes rigorous term management and consistent enforcement against premature market entries all the more important.

How do invalidity and infringement proceedings work?

The invalidity of a patent – for lack of novelty or inventive step, for example – is asserted before the specialised civil courts for intellectual and industrial property rights; in infringement litigation, the invalidity counterclaim is the usual defence, and the proceedings are regularly heard together. In the event of infringement, the patentee has claims for injunctive relief, removal, destruction, damages including the infringer's profits or a hypothetical licence fee, as well as preliminary relief including the securing of evidence. In technical matters, the courts rely heavily on expert panels; the quality of the party's own technical submissions and the choice of objections to the expert reports are therefore decisive for the outcome. Unlike trademark infringement, patent infringement is not a criminal offence; enforcement is exclusively civil.

What should be known about costs, duration and litigation tactics?

National grant proceedings take several years depending on the technical field and the course of examination; EPC validation, by contrast, is a purely formal act within the translation deadline. First-instance infringement and invalidity cases – driven by multi-stage expert reports – take around two to four years in our experience, plus appeal and cassation. Preliminary measures at the outset, the early securing of one's own search and expert positions, and the sequencing of attack and defence are therefore tactically important: whoever anticipates an infringement action can seize the initiative with its own invalidity action or an action for a negative declaration. Costs are moderate by international standards; the losing party bears the court costs and the statutory attorney fees of the other side.

What should foreign companies bear in mind in practice?

• Monitor validation deadlines for European patents in Turkey centrally; Turkey is not covered by the Unitary Patent.
• Secure annual fee payments through a local representative or service provider – lapse for missed fees is an avoidable total loss.
• Conduct freedom-to-operate searches in the Turkish register before product launches.
• Add provisions on invention reporting, claiming and compensation to R&D and employment contracts with Turkish entities.
• In infringement cases, consider evidence preservation and preliminary measures early in order to stop the infringer's sales and trade fair activities.

Why does litigation strategy decide the outcome of patent cases? An example from practice

In a case decided by the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (44th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/577, K. 2025/1149, judgment of 25 September 2025), the main and joined actions concerned the infringement of a patent for a clinker cooling process, claims for material and moral damages, and the invalidity of the patent. The claimant argued that claims 1 and 5 of its patent TR ... T4 validated with TÜRKPATENT (the Turkish part of a European patent) for a process for cooling clinker material heated in a kiln were being infringed directly and indirectly by the defendants (a cement company and a machinery manufacturer); it sought a declaration of infringement, injunctive relief and removal, moral damages and material damages as an unquantified claim. The defendants pleaded limitation, argued that the system used was based on an earlier-priority Danish patent application from 1999 and on techniques in the public domain, and counterclaimed for invalidation of the patent.

On the basis of the expert reports, the court found that the clinker cooling system used by the defendants did not fulfil the infringement allegations: in its basic structure and mode of operation the system corresponded to the state of the art (the earlier-priority application), and the features of the patent claims – in particular the vertical mixing movement and the differing technical elements – were not identically realised by the defendants. Since the process applied used technical elements outside the scope of protection and available to the public, and since the realisation of the protected process features (bed height and mixing characteristics) could not be proven through the expert examination, the infringement and damages claims were dismissed.

Whether an infringement allegation succeeds legally and technically depends on proving – with concrete, incontrovertible technical data – that the attacked product or process realises the scope of the patent exactly and completely. Because the courts are called upon to decide legal disputes and must involve expert panels in technically demanding cases, the experts' professional backgrounds and examination methodologies not infrequently produce entirely different, sometimes contradictory opinions. Particularly in cases of high economic and strategic value, the outcome should therefore not be left to chance: from the very beginning, a comprehensive analysis by genuinely qualified independent technical experts and the submission of a private expert opinion to the court are essential – in our experience, the success rate of professionally and technically prepared cases is exceptionally high.

Conclusion

With Code No. 6769, Turkey has an examined, EPC-compatible patent system with opposition proceedings, clear limits of protection and specialised courts. For European companies, protection is easy to obtain by validating European patents; its value, however, depends on active portfolio management – deadlines, annuities, use and enforcement strategy.

The utility model offers fast, cost-effective supplementary protection for smaller technical improvements. In disputes, the technical evidence matters as much as the legal position; early forensic preparation pays for itself many times over.

The IP/IT team at GEMS Schindhelm advises companies on protection strategies for technical inventions in Turkey, on validation, opposition and invalidity, and on the enforcement and defence of patent claims before the specialised courts.