The Netherlands occupies a special position in European patent law that many applicants only discover once they actually have to work with it: a Dutch national patent is, to this day, granted without any substantive examination of novelty or inventive step — a pure “registration patent”. At the same time, a PCT application currently cannot be converted directly into the Dutch national phase. Both points are the subject of a far-reaching reform that, at the time of writing, is still working its way through the legislative process. The overview below sets out the current legal position and the changes on the horizon.
1. Direct Filing: A National Patent Application in the Netherlands
A direct, stand-alone national patent application with the Dutch patent office — Octrooicentrum Nederland, part of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), based in The Hague — is possible at any time, whether as a first filing or as a subsequent filing claiming a foreign priority under the Paris Convention. This route is entirely independent of the PCT issue described below and remains the classic, unproblematic path to Dutch patent protection.
Also common in practice is the so-called “NL-PCT strategy”: a Dutch priority application is filed first at the national level; within the twelve-month priority period, an international PCT follow-up application is then filed, for which the EPO — as the competent International Searching Authority — has by then already produced a novelty report on the original Dutch application. This gives the applicant roughly two and a half years to make the eventual choice of countries based on a solid search report. This is purely a filing strategy and has nothing to do with the separate question of entering the Netherlands from a PCT application, addressed next.
2. Entering the Dutch National Phase from a PCT Application
This is where the most practically important particularity lies. Under the WIPO PCT Applicant’s Guide (in the version of the national chapter for the Netherlands current at the time of writing), the entry states explicitly: “The Office closed the national route” — the Office has closed the national phase for PCT applications. An international PCT application therefore cannot currently be converted directly into a Dutch national phase. The only competent designated/elected Office for the Netherlands under the PCT is the European Patent Office; via the PCT, only a European patent can be obtained for protection in the Netherlands, which is subsequently validated there.
Anyone seeking patent protection in the Netherlands via the PCT route must therefore go through the European phase before the EPO — a stand-alone Dutch follow-up filing derived directly from a PCT application is, under current law, not available. This is one of the central changes the legislative reform described below is intended to remove.
3. Formal Requirements
A Dutch direct filing requires a description, claims, drawings where applicable, and an abstract; an official novelty search is mandatory and, under a cooperation arrangement, is generally carried out by the EPO. Applicants without a residence or seat in the Netherlands must appoint a registered Dutch patent attorney (octrooigemachtigde), listed in the Register of Patent Attorneys (Octrooigemachtigdenregister), for the conduct of proceedings; this is not strictly required merely to secure a filing date, but it is required for further prosecution. As elsewhere in Europe, the term of protection is 20 years from the filing date, subject to payment of renewal fees.
4. Language
The description of a Dutch patent application may be filed in either Dutch or English — a useful cost saving where a European or international follow-up application in an EPO procedural language is planned anyway. The claims, by contrast, must be in Dutch; if they are initially filed in another language, a Dutch translation must be filed within three months of being requested to do so. The language of proceedings before the Office is otherwise Dutch.
5. Particularities of Dutch Patent Law
The registration patent. The substantive patentability requirements under the Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability) are harmonised with the EPC. They are not, however, examined by the Office of its own motion before grant: the Office merely produces a novelty search report, but grants the patent regardless of its outcome. Whether an invention was, in fact, novel and inventive is only established if the patent is challenged in court. This makes Dutch patents quick and inexpensive to obtain, but legally less robust than examined patents — a trade-off that has been the subject of criticism for years.
The advisory opinion procedure (Art. 76 ROW 1995). Anyone wishing to argue the invalidity of a Dutch patent in court must submit to the court an advisory opinion from Octrooicentrum Nederland on the grounds of invalidity. This opinion is not binding, but in practice provides an initial, technically grounded assessment of validity — often the basis for an out-of-court settlement.
The prohibition of double protection vis-à-vis the European patent (Art. 77 ROW 1995). Where both a Dutch national patent and a European patent are granted for the same invention with the same filing or priority date, the Dutch national patent loses its effect once the European patent becomes unassailable. If the European patent is later (partially) revoked, the national patent does not revive. In practice, this means that building up parallel protection through both routes is not an additional safeguard — it results in the loss of the national right.
No opposition procedure. There is no opposition procedure comparable to that before the EPO; review of validity takes place exclusively before the ordinary courts, supplemented by the advisory opinion procedure described above.
Unitary Patent and the UPC. The Netherlands is a contracting state to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and has participated in the Unitary Patent system from the outset. A Unitary Patent, or a classic European patent litigated before the UPC, accordingly takes effect in the Netherlands without separate validation — a contrast, for instance, with the Czech Republic or Poland, which (as of this article) have not yet ratified the UPC Agreement.
6. The Reform on the Horizon: the Nieuwe Rijksoctrooiwet (NROW)
In early 2026, the Dutch government agreed on a fundamental reform of patent law. Its legislative process is, at the time of writing, still underway and it is accordingly not yet in force. The central proposed changes are:
- Reintroduction of the examined patent. In future, a Dutch patent is to be granted only once novelty, inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure have been officially examined — the current pure registration system would end for new applications. This would considerably increase the legal certainty of granted patents, but is likely, in return, to lengthen and raise the cost of examination.
- Opening up PCT national-phase entry. International applicants would in future be able to enter the Dutch national phase directly from a PCT application, without having to take the detour via the European phase before the EPO — precisely the gap described in point 2 above.
- Protection for the North Sea economic zone. Patent protection is to be explicitly extended to the exclusive economic zone in the North Sea — relevant, for example, to offshore wind energy and cable and pipeline infrastructure.
- Easier third-party objections against patents considered by third parties to have been wrongly granted, as a kind of corrective for the disappearing pure registration principle.
As the legislative process is still in parliamentary deliberation, neither the exact date of entry into force nor the final shape of the transitional provisions for pending applications has been settled. Applicants with pending Dutch proceedings should keep track of further developments, since it may become possible to request examination voluntarily for applications already pending.
Conclusion for IP Practice
- Direct filing: unrestricted. A national Dutch patent application — whether a first filing or a subsequent filing — can be filed with Octrooicentrum Nederland at any time.
- PCT national-phase entry: currently unavailable. Anyone seeking protection in the Netherlands via the PCT must go through the European phase before the EPO; a direct Dutch national phase does not currently exist.
- Language flexible, claims mandatorily in Dutch. The description may be filed in English; the claims must be in Dutch (at the latest, within three months of being requested).
- Registration patent, not examined patent — for now. Dutch patents are, to date, granted without substantive examination, making them fast and inexpensive but legally less robust than examined rights.
- Mind the double-protection bar. Parallel protection through a national and a European patent for the same invention results in the loss of the national patent once the European patent becomes unassailable — it is not an additional safeguard.
- Reform is coming. The planned Nieuwe Rijksoctrooiwet would reintroduce examination and close the PCT national-phase gap, but remains in the legislative process for now.
Photo: © Nicolas Raymond, [CC BY 2.0]
