Withdrawing or Surrendering a Turkish Patent: Consent, Claims and Legal Effects

Withdrawing a Turkish patent application and surrendering a granted patent are different legal acts. Article 105 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 governs withdrawal before grant is announced. Article 140 governs surrender of a patent and requires a written notification to the Office, with effect from entry in the register. Registered rights, licences and certain ownership disputes can prevent unilateral abandonment.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

A foreign company closing a Turkish project, selling its technology portfolio or reducing maintenance costs should therefore identify the legal stage before instructing anyone to cancel the patent. An internal decision to stop production does not itself terminate the right. Nor does cancelling a service provider’s renewal instruction establish that a statutory surrender has been completed. This guide explains the legal distinctions and the documents needed for a controlled exit.

Start with an asset-by-asset status review

Identify the application or patent number, applicant or proprietor, grant status, publication history and recorded third-party interests. A business can hold several related rights with different procedural stages. An instruction referring only to the project name can accidentally combine a pending application, a granted national patent and rights in other countries.

A patent family is not terminated by one universal commercial instruction. This guide concerns the Turkish statutory acts under Articles 105 and 140. A European patent, foreign application or international filing can require separate analysis of the relevant procedure and territorial effects. Do not describe an entry affecting one Turkish right as proof that the whole worldwide family has disappeared.

Check the authority of the person giving the instruction. A manager who can approve operating expenses does not automatically have authority to surrender a valuable intellectual property asset. The corporate approval, representative’s authority and Office formalities should be aligned. Article 160 governs representation before TÜRKPATENT; court representation and registered patent-attorney representation are distinct professional functions.

For a co-owned patent, review the owners’ agreement and the particular authority being exercised. Article 112 allows specified independent acts, including preservation and enforcement, but a power to maintain the asset should not be treated as an instruction to surrender the whole shared right. Confirm which owners are represented and whether the proposed filing concerns the entire patent or a legally distinct transaction involving a share. Keep the approval record separate from ordinary annual-fee correspondence so that the professional filing the request can identify the precise decision actually authorised by the relevant parties.

Article 105: withdrawal before grant is announced

Article 105(1) allows the applicant to withdraw the application at any time before announcement of the patent’s grant. If the application has been published, its withdrawal is published in the Bulletin. The paragraph also states that, after publication of the withdrawal, the withdrawal request cannot be revoked.

The publication event is therefore important. Preserve the withdrawal request, its receipt and the relevant Bulletin entry instead of treating the date of an internal email as the legal endpoint. The statute’s express bar after publication should not be converted into a promise that every earlier attempt to reverse an instruction will necessarily succeed; the actual procedural position must be checked.

Where the application has already proceeded to a granted patent, use the correct surrender framework rather than an obsolete application-withdrawal instruction. The file should establish the exact status when the request was made. A commercial team may continue calling the asset an application even after grant, but the statutory route follows the legal stage.

Registered third-party rights restrict withdrawal

Article 105(2) prevents withdrawal without the consent of third parties who have rights over the application recorded in the register. Obtain a current register extract and identify the relevant licence or other recorded interest. A search limited to the applicant’s name does not reveal every restriction relevant to abandonment.

Review the underlying agreement as well. Consent to an ordinary licence amendment is not necessarily consent to destruction of the application on which the licensed business depends. The approval should identify the asset and the act authorised. This is a practical drafting recommendation; Article 105 does not itself supply a standard commercial consent form.

Do not assume that a third party’s silence or failure to answer an informal message satisfies the statutory consent requirement. Preserve the actual approval and verify the authority of the signatory. Where a recorded corporate holder has changed name or merged, the chain identifying the person able to consent requires attention before filing.

Publication affects the possibility of filing again

Article 105(3) permits a new application for the same invention where an unpublished application has been withdrawn, deemed withdrawn or rejected. That statement should not be expanded into an automatic right to preserve the first filing date or every priority position. A new application and a continuation of the old application are not the same event.

Article 105(4) states that, if a published application is withdrawn, another application for the same invention cannot be made. The difference between an unpublished and a published file is therefore commercially significant. A company should not first withdraw a published application and only afterwards investigate whether it can simply start the same filing again.

Independent patentability questions also remain relevant to any proposed filing strategy. Earlier publications and the actual technical content must be assessed under the applicable provisions. This guide does not treat withdrawal as a mechanism for resetting novelty or erasing information already made public. The decision should be based on the genuine publication history and the invention concerned.

Article 140: surrender of all or specified patent claims

Article 140(3) permits the proprietor to surrender the whole patent or one or more claims. Partial surrender has express conditions: the remaining claim or claims must be capable of forming the subject of a separate patent, and the surrender must not enlarge the patent’s scope. The result must be assessed technically as well as administratively.

Identify each claim affected and the relationship between independent and dependent claims. A request described only as abandoning the less useful parts of the patent is not a clear claim-level instruction. Keep the current granted or maintained claim text, the proposed surrendered claims and the intended remaining protection together in the file.

Partial surrender is not a general permission to rewrite claims into broader rights. Nor should it be confused with limitation or amendment under a different national or treaty procedure. Where the right is a European patent, the relevant European framework must be considered separately. Our patent invalidity guide explains an important distinction concerning claim limitation in validity proceedings.

Under Article 140(4), surrender must be notified in writing to the Office and takes effect from registration. Article 140(7) provides for publication in the Bulletin. A signed request and a completed register entry are therefore distinct milestones. Obtain the resulting record before telling counterparties that the surrender is legally effective.

Licence holders and ownership claimants require separate checks

Article 140(5) prevents surrender without the consent of registered right holders and licensees. An owner should not assume that its proprietary status allows it to disregard the interests it previously granted. The licence schedule, register and proposed consent documents should be reviewed together.

The contractual consequences also need attention. An agreement can address maintenance, cooperation and the allocation of costs, but those clauses must not be presented as automatically satisfying every statutory consent requirement. Our patent licensing guide explains the separate issues of permission, technical information and licensor responsibility.

Article 140(6) addresses a third party claiming ownership where an interim order concerning that claim has been recorded in the register. In that situation, surrender requires that person’s consent. The registered interim-order condition matters: the provision should not be paraphrased as saying that every unsupported allegation of ownership automatically blocks surrender.

For a pending application, Article 110(8) contains a different protection: until the entitlement judgment becomes final, the application cannot be withdrawn without the claimant’s consent. The patent ownership recovery guide explains that litigation route. Identify whether the file concerns a pending application or a granted patent before applying the relevant restriction.

Termination, invalidity and non-payment have different effects

Article 140(1) identifies expiry of the protection period, surrender and non-payment within the Article 101 periods as termination events. Under Article 140(2), the Office publishes termination and the subject matter becomes public from the time the terminating cause occurs. The legal event, rather than a later marketing announcement, determines the relevant transition.

This is not the same as Article 139’s retrospective invalidity framework. Surrender should not be represented as proof that the patent never existed or that every earlier transaction and infringement allegation disappears. Historic claims, contractual obligations and the specific relief sought require separate analysis.

Deliberate non-payment is also not simply another name for a written surrender. Article 101 contains late-payment and revival provisions, while Article 107 provides distinct procedural remedies under its conditions. Our annual-fee and restoration guide explains those differences. A business should not use an ambiguous lapse instruction as a substitute for analysing its licence and ownership obligations.

The end of one patent does not clear separate patents, trademarks, designs, confidential-information obligations or regulatory requirements. A product-launch decision must identify the actual rights affecting the product. The phrase public domain in relation to the surrendered patent should not be turned into a blanket statement that every commercial use of the technology is unrestricted.

Close the transaction file, not just the renewal account

Before filing, prepare a decision record containing the asset, the chosen legal route, the current register, required consents, corporate authority and any pending litigation. Retain the technical analysis for partial surrender and the publication history for withdrawal. These records explain what was intentionally abandoned and what was meant to remain.

After filing, obtain the Office receipt and track the register and Bulletin outcome. Update the licence and acquisition teams with the observed status, not an assumed result. A request that remains pending should be reported as pending. If the resulting record differs from the instruction, address that discrepancy before further commercial commitments rely on it.

Preserve evidence relevant to historic use, payments and disputes. Ending a patent right is not a reason to destroy records that may be needed for existing proceedings or contractual accounting. Confidential information should continue to be handled according to the applicable obligations, even when the particular patent is no longer maintained.

The final commercial communication should distinguish facts from conclusions: which Turkish right ended, by what mechanism, on what legally relevant date and with what related matters still unresolved. That record is more useful to an overseas board or investor than a one-line statement that the patent has been cancelled.

Official legal sources

Primary provisions: Industrial Property Code No. 6769, Articles 101, 105, 110, 139–140 and 160. Consult the TÜRKPATENT legislation directory for official legislation links. This English explanation is not an official translation or confirmation that a particular surrender or withdrawal is effective.

Istanbul and Mersin offices

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office is Mersin-based and works throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus.

Istanbul — Polaris Plaza

Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Floor 9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul. Istanbul office directions.

Mersin — Profit İş Merkezi

İhsaniye Mahallesi, 4903. Sokak, Profit İş Merkezi No:23, Floor 3, Office 14, 33070 Akdeniz/Mersin. Mersin office directions.

Call +90 552 224 43 66. An enquiry does not establish representation or suspend a legal deadline.