Law. Human. Environment

Protection of inventions and patentability issues under Albanian and European legislation

Ervis Çela, Endi Kalemaj, Maksim Qoku
Download article
Abstract

The purpose of the study was to identify the legal gaps, institutional conflicts, and practical enforcement problems within the regulation of invention protection in Albania. The institution of Albanian patent law is examined through the prism of a systemic and legal approach, which has made it possible to trace the relationship between national norms and European standards of invention protection. The research has established that Albania’s system of invention protection has undergone stages of institutional transformation driven by the transition to a market economy and integration into the European legal space. Based on an analysis of institutional, procedural, and expert factors, five key groups of challenges have been identified that limit the effectiveness of the legal protection system for inventions: institutional, procedural, expert, personnel, and informational. The analysis of judicial decisions revealed that national courts tend to focus on procedural and administrative aspects of patent protection, while the technical assessment of novelty and inventive step remains insufficiently developed. Case analysis of judicial rulings and the formal legal method enabled the identification of typical errors in interpreting the criteria of novelty and inventive step, as well as the formulation of proposals for improving the examination of patent applications. The analysis has demonstrated that establishing a dedicated Invention Examination Unit within the General Directorate of Industrial Property, introducing systematic professional development for examiners supported by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and integrating modern information resources (such as Espacenet) would enhance the accuracy of the techno-legal analysis of patent applications and reduce the number of contradictory decisions. The findings of this study may be applied in the work of legislative bodies, patent examiners, judges, and intellectual property law educators with the aim of harmonising national practice with European standards

Keywords

technological leadership; law enforcement practice; technical expertise; institutional capacity; appeal

Suggested citation
Çela, E., Kalemaj, E., & Qoku, M. (2026). Protection of inventions and patentability issues under Albanian and European legislation. Law. Human. Environment, 17(1), 154-173. https://doi.org/10.31548/law/1.2026.154
References
  1. Academic Research Programme. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/learning/learning-resources-profile/universities-research-centres-and-technology-transfer-centres/academic-research-programme.
  2. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). (1994, April). Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm.
  3. Albania adopts new law on patents, utility models and SPCs. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.hmh.al/post/albania-adopts-new-law-on-patents-utility-models-and-spcs.
  4. Albania Report 2023. (2023, November). Retrieved from https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/albania-report-2023_en.
  5. Beqiraj, L. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights in Albania: Between innovation and regulatory challenges. Balkan Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 11(2), 43-51. doi: 10.2478/bjir-2025-0014.
  6. Boards of Appeal. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/case-law-appeals.
  7. Bodi, I., Piperi, E., Xhafka, E., Teta, J., & Kosta, M. (2021). Role of Industry 4.0 in Albanian Industry Transformation: An Integrated Understanding of Industry 4.0. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 233, 251-259. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-75275-0_29.
  8. Çami, L., & Skënderi, X. (2023). Biotechnology and intellectual property law: Theoretical and practical reflections on Albanian national law and jurisprudence in comparison with EU Acquis and ECJ Case Law. Biotechnology Law Report, 42(3). doi: 10.1089/blr.2023.29309.x.
  9. Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Case No. G 0002/21. (2023, March). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/boards-of-appeal/decisions/pdf/g210002ex1.pdf.
  10. Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Case No. T 1389/10 – 3.2.04. (2011, September). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/boards-of-appeal/decisions/pdf/t101389eu1.pdf.
  11. Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Case No. T 2472/13 – 3.2.01. (2015, December). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/boards-of-appeal/decisions/pdf/t132472eu1.pdf.
  12. Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in Case No. T 0553/22 – 3.2.05. (2024, January). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/boards-of-appeal/decisions/pdf/t220553eu1.pdf.
  13. Directive of the Council of European Union No. 2004/48/EC “On the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights”. (2004, April). Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/48/oj.
  14. Directive of the Council of European Union No. 98/44/EC “On the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions”. (1998, July). Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/44/oj.
  15. Dyer, T.A., Glaeser, S., Lang, M.H., & Sprecher, C. (2024). The effect of patent disclosure quality on innovation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 77(2-3), article number 101647. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101647.
  16. European Patent Convention (EPC). (1973, October). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc-1973/2006/convention.html.
  17. Garattini, L., Badinella Martini, M., & Mannucci, P.M. (2021). Pharmaceutical patenting in the European Union: Reform or riddance. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 17(3), 937-939. doi: 10.1007/s11739-021-02887-6.
  18. General Directorate of Industrial Property (GDIP). (2025). Retrieved from https://wbc-rti.info/object/organisation/9736.html.
  19. Gill, A., & Heller, D. (2024). Leveraging intellectual property: The value of harmonized enforcement regimes. Journal of Banking Finance, 163, article number 107169. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2024.107169.
  20. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc.
  21. Hall, B.H., & Helmers, C. (2019). The impact of international patent systems: Evidence from accession to the European Patent Convention. Research Policy, 48(9), article number 103810. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.103810.
  22. Hutukka, P. (2023). Patent law in comparative context: Differences and similarities of patent law in the European Union, the United States and China. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 30(3), 273-311. doi: 10.1177/1023263X231206007.
  23. Ilieva, R.K., & Ivanov, A.S. (2025). Controversial issues in the action for annulment of the resolutions of the general meeting of the commercial companies in the Republic of Bulgaria. Balcan Social Science Review, 25(25), 27-43. doi; 10.46763/BSSR25252527ki.
  24. Invention patents, 85 applications in Albania in the last 5 years. (2023). Retrieved from https://politiko.al/english/e-tjera/p-e-shpikjeve-85-aplikime-ne-shqiperi-ne-5-vitet-e-fundit-i490375.
  25. Judgment of Administrative Chamber of Supreme Court of Albania in Case No. 00-017-2270. (2017, November). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/judgments/details/1473.
  26. Judgment of Tirana District Court of Albania in Case No. 298. (2019, January). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/judgments/details/1413.
  27. Kafouros, M., Aliyev, M., & Krammer, S.M.S. (2021). Do firms profit from patent litigation? The contingent roles of diversification and intangible asset. Research Policy, 50(6), article number 104263. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104263.
  28. Kubiczek, J., Roszko-Wójtowicz, E., Koczy, J., Waszkiewicz, I., & Woś, K. (2025). Harnessing AI for business transformation: strategies for effective implementation and market advantage. Statistics in Transition New Series, 26(2), 199-213. doi: 10.59139/stattrans-2025-022.
  29. Law of Albania No. 53/2025 of July 3, 2025 “On Patents, Utility Models and Supplementary Protection Certificates”. (2025, July). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/23529.
  30. Law of Albania No. 9947 “On Industrial Property”. (2008, August). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/490034.
  31. Lerner, J., & Seru, A. (2022). The use and misuse of patent data: Issues for finance and beyond. Review of Financial Studies, 35(6), 2667-2704. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhab084.
  32. Mezzanotti, F. (2021). Roadblock to innovation: The role of patent litigation in corporate R&D. Management Science, 67(12), 7362-7390. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3816.
  33. Ministry of Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Albania. (2025). Retrieved from https://ekonomia.gov.al/.
  34. Muçmataj, I., & Liçenji, A. (2025). Copyright and related rights legislation in Albania: From traditional to digital protection. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 8(4). doi: 10.33327/AJEE-18-8.4-r000133.
  35. Papageorgiadis, N., & Sofka, W. (2020). Patent enforcement across 51 countries – patent enforcement index 1998-2017. Journal of World Business, 55(4), article number 101092. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101092.
  36. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. (1883, March). Retrieved from https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2014-04/Paris_Convention_0.pdf.
  37. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PTC) of Albania. (1970, June). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/en/web/pct-system/texts/articles/atoc.
  38. Patent Profession in the EPC Contracting states. (2025). Retrieved from https://patentepi.org/de/education-and-training/table-of-patent-profession.html.
  39. Põld, L. (2024). Preserving secrecy within the patent system to safeguard western countries’ technological innovation. International Law, 33.
  40. Shu, T., Tian, X., & Zhan, X. (2022). Patent quality, firm value, and investor underreaction: Evidence from patent examiner busyness. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(3), 1043-1069. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.10.013.
  41. Sofka, W., Papageorgiadis, N., Sahasranamam, S., & Mukundhan, K.V. (2025). Strategic vulnerabilities of emerging market MNCs – how litigation experiences in weak patent systems increase the risks of patent litigation abroad. Journal of World Business, 60(3), article number 101624. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2025.101624.
  42. Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part – Protocols – Declarations No. O.J. (L 107) 166. (2006, June). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2009/332/oj/eng.
  43. Syam, N. (2022). Robust patent examination or deep harmonization? Cooperation and work sharing between patent offices. In Access to Medicines and Vaccines (pp. 241-276). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-83114-1_9.
  44. Teta, J., & Xhafka, E. (2024). The Qualitative Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in the Albanian Clothing Industry. Apuntes Del Cenes, 43(78), 51-68. doi: 10.19053/uptc.01203053.v43.n78.2024.17251.
  45. Tirana Court of Appeal. (2025). Retrieved from https://gjykata.gov.al/apel-tiran%C3%AB/tiran%C3%AB-appeal-court/.
  46. Ullrich, H. (2023). Patent dependency under European and European Union Patent Law – a regulatory gap. GRUR International, 72(12), 1107-1124. doi: 10.1093/grurint/ikad109.
  47. Walsh, K. (2019). Promoting harmonisation across the European patent system Through Judicial Dialogue and Cooperation, 50, 408-440. doi: 10.1007/s40319-019-00808-x.
  48. Walsh, K., McMahon, A., & Hawkins, N. (2022). Special issue: Patents in a changing Europe. European Intellectual Property Review, 44(4), 192-197.
  49. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2025). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html.
  50. World Trade Organization. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/.
  51. Xhuvani, E. (2023). Case study on integration process of Albania towards Eu: Harmonisation of domestic legislation with that of EU. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 6(4). doi: 10.33327/AJEE-18-6.4-n000404.
  52. Yildiz, Ö.Ö., & Görkey, S. (2024). Causal links between patents and economic growth: Empirical evidence from OECD countries. International Journal of Innovation, 12(2), article number e26107. doi: 10.5585/2024.26107.