Austria: An Intellectual Property Overview

Austria, although a relatively small country with a population of 8.9 million, has a long-standing tradition of protecting intellectual property. The Austrian Patent Office has played a significant role in the development of the IR, PCT and EP systems, as well as in the establishment of the EUIPO. One example of Austria’s international engagement is the Vienna Classification (VCL), an international classification system established in 1973 under the Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks and administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Austrian Patent Office granted its first patent in 1899 for “arc light regulators”. Austrian IP practitioners continue to uphold this tradition.

The Austrian intellectual property (IP) ecosystem has moved from a period of “digital anticipation” to one of “regulatory reality”. Over the past 24 months, the jurisdiction has acted decisively to implement key EU regulations, most notably the EU AI Act and the Unitary Patent system. Economically, after a prolonged period of stagnation in 2023 and 2024, the Austrian market is showing signs of a “technical recovery” in 2026, with innovation-driven sectors leading the way. In 2025, the sectors generating the highest number of patent applications in Austria were civil engineering, transport, electrical machinery, special-purpose machinery and furniture.

The Austrian economy enters 2026 following a difficult stabilisation phase. After GDP contractions in 2024, forecasts for 2026 indicate growth of approximately 1.1%. While traditional manufacturing sectors faced significant pressure due to rising energy costs and supply chain recalibrations, the legal and IP sectors experienced a counter-cyclical boom.

Clients – particularly in the life sciences, greentech and software sectors – are increasingly shifting away from defensive IP strategies towards active monetisation and cross-border enforcement. The rising cost of capital in 2024–2025 forced many companies to review their patent portfolios, resulting in a clear “quality over quantity” trend that has significantly influenced patent filing strategies before the Austrian Patent Office (ÖPA).

Politically, the Austrian government has doubled down on its “RTI Strategy 2030” (Research, Technology, and Innovation). The RTI Pact 2024–2026 has provided a stable funding framework amounting to billions of euros, specifically targeting “European technological sovereignty”. This political backing has catalysed legislative updates designed to make Austria a more attractive venue for IP-intensive industries, including the expansion of the Research Premium (Forschungsprämie).

At present, three major themes dominate the IP practice landscape in Austria:

• UPC Integration: The Vienna Local Division of the Unified Patent Court has become a busy hub for mechanical and pharmaceutical litigation.
• AI Compliance: The legal profession has seen a dramatic increase in “AI governance” audits as the deadline for high-risk AI system compliance (NIS2) approaches in October 2026.
• Sustainability IP: A surge in “green trade marking” has occurred as companies prepare for the strict new anti-greenwashing rules.

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) is no longer a distant threat. In Austria, the implementation has been phased:

• Prohibitions on “unacceptable risk” AI systems (eg, social scoring) have become enforceable.
• Transparency obligations for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models have taken effect. This requires providers to disclose summaries of copyrighted content used for training. This development represents a major victory for Austrian publishers and artists.

Looking ahead, the full set of obligations for “high-risk” systems – including those used in healthcare, HR and credit scoring – will enter into force, requiring extensive technical documentation and human oversight.

“Green Claims”

The legal landscape for environmental advertising is shifting from a lenient past toward strict regulation to combat greenwashing. Under the EU’s EmpCo Directive, claims of “carbon neutrality” based solely on offsetting will be banned starting September 2026. General environmental terms like “green” or “eco” will also be prohibited unless supported by recognised proof of excellent environmental performance. These regulations even extend to registered trade marks, meaning established brand names may be restricted if they create a misleading environmental impression. With Austria required to implement these rules by March 2026, businesses face an urgent deadline to audit their branding and marketing for compliance.

Research Premium Amendment

A domestic development of high relevance for IP-heavy firms is the amendment to the Research Premium Ordinance (FoPV). Clarified by the Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH), the new rules from 2026 allow for a more robust capitalisation of internal R&D costs related to patent development, providing a 14% cashback premium on qualified expenditures.

Landmark Judicial Decisions

The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) has been active in refining the boundaries of IP enforcement in a digital, borderless market.

Trade mark law

The OGH ruled that the burden of proof for trade mark exhaustion shifts to the brand owner when selective distribution systems and untraceable tracking codes make it impossible for third-party retailers to verify a product’s origin. In this case, because the defendant’s suppliers refused to reveal their sources to avoid being blacklisted, the court required the perfume manufacturer to prove the goods were first marketed outside the EEA. Since the manufacturer’s own tracking data was too incomplete to confirm a non-EEA origin, the court dismissed the infringement claim and allowed the continued sale of the products.

Patent law

The Higher Regional Court of Vienna recently issued two significant decisions regarding patent infringement and the granting of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs). In the first case, the court upheld a preliminary injunction against a generic manufacturer, concluding that a specific plasma half-life requirement is inherently fulfilled by using the same chemically defined active ingredient. The ruling clarified that because the generic drug is identical to the patented reference, it must necessarily share the same therapeutic efficacy and pharmacokinetic characteristics.

In the second case, the court reversed a rejection of SPC applications for a combination drug despite one active ingredient not being explicitly named in the basic patent. Applying European legal standards, the court determined that the drug was sufficiently identified through a general functional definition and the specific technical context provided within the patent’s description.

Copyright: targeting foreign websites

The OGH ruled that Austrian courts lack international jurisdiction to enforce debt claims against generic “.com” domains when the foreign debtor has no general place of jurisdiction in Austria. While enforcement is permissible for “.at” domains because the domestic registrar provides a sufficient territorial link, generic domains controlled by international entities like ICANN do not share this connection.

Consequently, execution on “.com” domains in Austria is legally possible if the debtor is resident or maintains a corporate seat within the country.

Unified Patent Court

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal clarified that “offering” a patented product is interpreted broadly to include “invitations to treat” (invitatio ad offerendum), meaning a specific price or immediate delivery capability is not required to establish infringement.

In assessing inventive step, the court follows an “objective task” approach, where a solution is deemed obvious if a skilled person had a realistic starting point and a reasonable expectation of success rather than a mere hope.

Interestingly, regarding personal liability, managing directors are generally protected from infringement claims unless they specifically use the company to commit violations or fail to intervene despite knowing of the infringement.

Unfair competition law

The Higher Regional Court of Vienna ruled that reducing a product’s filling quantity while keeping the price and packaging size identical constitutes a misleading commercial practice. In this specific case, a frozen fish producer decreased its content by 12%, which the court identified as “shrinkflation” that deceives consumers despite the correct weight being printed on the box. The court reasoned that average consumers rely on the visual impression of packaging for routine purchases and generally do not notice subtle changes in numerical weight markings. Legal commentary within the text criticises the ruling for conflating shrinkflation with oversized packaging, questioning whether consumers truly maintain a fixed expectation of weight for everyday goods. Ultimately, this case triggered new Austrian legislation scheduled for 2026, which will mandate that retailers flag weight reductions directly on store shelves for a 60-day period.