Turkish law recognises and protects a broad range of intellectual property (IP) rights, primarily regulated under the Industrial Property Code (“IP Code”) and the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works. These rights are generally divided into industrial property rights and copyright and related rights.

Industrial property rights include patents and utility models; trade marks; industrial designs; and geographical indications and traditional product names. In addition to national patents, European patents designating Türkiye acquire the same legal effects as national patents once they are duly validated before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TURKPATENT). From the perspective of enforcement and litigation, validated European patents are treated identically to national patents and are subject to the same substantive and procedural rules.

Copyright protection covers literary, scientific, musical and artistic works, as well as cinematographic works, computer software and databases, provided that they bear the author’s individuality. Related rights are granted to performers, phonogram (ie, sound recording) producers, broadcasting organisations and film producers.

In addition to statutory IP rights, Turkish law also affords protection to trade secrets and confidential business information under general principles of unfair competition and contractual obligations.

Under Turkish law, the patent grant procedure consists of several consecutive stages, namely, formal examination, search, publication, examination and grant.

The grant procedure begins with an examination of the application for formal compliance. If the application lacks any of the minimum filing elements required for the establishment of a filing date (namely, a request for the grant of a patent, identification and contact details of the applicant, and a specification written in Turkish or in one of the accepted foreign languages), the application is not taken into processing.

Where the application is taken into processing but is missing one or more of the mandatory application documents (such as specification, claims, drawings, abstract, or proof of payment of the application fee), or where such documents have been filed in a foreign language, the applicant must remedy the deficiencies or submit Turkish translations within two months from the filing date, without any notification from TURKPATENT. Failure to do so results in the application being deemed withdrawn.

Once these deficiencies are remedied, TURKPATENT examines compliance. If further formal deficiencies are identified at this stage, TURKPATENT issues a formal notification granting the applicant two months to remedy the deficiencies. Failure to comply with such notification results in the rejection of the application.

The applicant must request a search report either at the time of filing or within 12 months from the filing date, provided that the official fee is paid. If no search request is made within this period, the application is deemed withdrawn. Where the subject matter is excluded from patentability or where the description or claims are insufficiently clear to allow a search, TURKPATENT may refrain from issuing a search report and invite the applicant to submit objections or amendments within three months. If the objections or amendments are not submitted or are not accepted, the application is rejected. If accepted, the search report is issued, notified to the applicant, and published in the Official Bulletin.

Patent applications are published in the Official Bulletin 18 months from the filing or priority date, unless early publication is requested. From the publication date, third parties may submit observations on patentability, although they do not acquire party status in the proceedings. Publication gives rise to provisional protection, enabling the applicant to assert rights against third parties from the publication date, and in certain circumstances even earlier if the alleged infringer had prior knowledge of the application.

Following notification of the search report, the applicant must request examination within three months, upon payment of the prescribed fee. Failure to do so results in the application being deemed withdrawn. During examination, TURKPATENT assesses whether the invention and the application comply with the substantive requirements of patentability. If deficiencies are identified, the applicant is invited, up to three times, to submit observations and amendments, provided that the scope of protection is not extended. Each response period is three months. Failure to respond results in withdrawal of the application.

If, following examination, TURKPATENT concludes that the application meets all statutory requirements, a decision to grant the patent is issued, notified to the applicant, and published together with the patent. Where grant is conditional upon amendments, the applicant is given two months to file acceptable amendments. If the amendments are not filed or are rejected, the application is deemed withdrawn. If the examination report concludes that the requirements are not met, the application is rejected.

After publication of the grant decision, the patent certificate is issued upon request and payment of the relevant fee.

In practice, patents are typically granted within approximately three to five years from the filing date. Utility models are registered considerably faster, often within a year following filing, due to the absence of examination.

The term of protection for patents in Türkiye is 20 years from the filing date of the application, provided that annual renewal fees are duly paid. Utility models are protected for a maximum term of ten years from the filing date. Failure to comply with renewal fee obligations results in the lapse of the right.

The owner of a patent is granted exclusive rights to exploit the patented invention and to prevent unauthorised use by third parties. In particular, the patent holder is entitled to request the prevention of the following acts, if carried out without consent:

• the manufacture, sale, use or importation of the patented product, or its possession for such purposes other than for personal use;
• the use of a patented process;
• the offering to others of the use of a patented process, where it is known or should have been known that such use is prohibited; and
• the sale, use, importation or possession for commercial purposes of products directly obtained by a patented process.

These exclusive rights enable the patent holder to seek injunctive relief, damages and other remedies against infringing activities.

However, Turkish law also provides for certain statutory limitations and exceptions to patent rights. The following acts fall outside the scope of patent protection and do not constitute infringement:

• acts carried out privately and for non-commercial purposes;
• acts conducted for experimental purposes involving the patented invention;
• experimental acts involving the patented invention for the purposes of obtaining marketing authorisation for pharmaceuticals, including related tests and trials (Bolar-type exemption);
• the preparation of medicines in pharmacies on the basis of individual prescriptions, provided that such preparation does not involve industrial-scale production, and acts relating to such medicines;
• the use of the patented invention on ships, aircraft, spacecraft or land vehicles of states party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, where such vehicles are temporarily or incidentally present within the territory of Türkiye and the use is limited to the needs of the vehicle; and
• acts relating to aircraft of states applying Article 27 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to the extent provided therein.

Accordingly, while patent owners enjoy broad exclusive rights, these rights are balanced by statutory exceptions designed to safeguard public interest, scientific research, international transport and access to medicines.

Turkish patent law does not provide for supplementary protection certificates or comparable patent term extensions.

Following publication of a patent application, third parties are entitled to submit observations regarding patentability to TURKPATENT. Such observations may address issues such as novelty and inventive step but do not confer party status on the submitting third party. These submissions may, however, influence the course of examination.

Applicants may challenge TURKPATENT Patent Department’s decisions refusing a patent application partially or wholly by filing an objection before the Higher Council of Evaluation/Examination, and the Higher Council’s decision can be tried before the specialised civil IP courts. Judicial review focuses on whether the administrative decision complies with the IP Code and applicable regulations.

If annual renewal fees are not paid within the prescribed period, the patent holder benefits from a statutory six-month grace period. Payment within this grace period requires an additional surcharge. Failure to pay the outstanding fees within the grace period results in the irrevocable lapse of the patent.

A post-grant opposition can be filed within six months upon the publication of the grant decision in the Patent Bulletin. The post-grant opposition can be filed by third parties. The law does not require the opposing party to show a legal interest.

After the opposition is filed, the patent holder is invited to submit its response, following which TURKPATENT examines the file and issues its decision. The overall opposition procedure typically takes around one year.

Patent rights in Türkiye are enforced through civil court proceedings. A patent holder may initiate an infringement action seeking permanent and preliminary injunctions, and ancillary remedies such as destruction of infringing products and publication of the judgment. In addition to actions on the merits, patent holders may seek compensation of damages by filing a compensation action.

Any third party with a legitimate legal interest may bring an action for invalidity of a patent or seek a declaration of non-infringement. Invalidity actions may be filed either as independent proceedings or as counterclaims within infringement actions. Declaratory non-infringement actions are available only where no infringement action has yet been filed against the third party.

Patent litigation falls within the jurisdiction of the specialised civil IP courts established in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Bursa and Antalya. Where the competent venue is outside these cities, general civil courts hear patent disputes. Turkish law does not adopt a bifurcated system; infringement and validity are examined by the same courts and often within the same proceedings. This unified approach has a significant impact on litigation strategy, particularly with respect to expert evidence and procedural timing.

Decisions of the first-instance courts can be appealed to the regional appellate courts. An appeal is heard by a panel of three non-technical judges. Decisions of the regional appellate courts are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consists of five non-technical judges. Unlike the regional appellate courts, the Supreme Court will only evaluate whether the law was applied correctly to the case.

IP disputes in Türkiye are resolved mainly through the judicial system, supported by administrative proceedings before TURKPATENT and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms where applicable. The judicial system is described in 2.3 Courts With Jurisdiction, TURKPATENT’s mechanisms are described in 1. Intellectual Property Rights and Granting Procedure, and alternative dispute resolution is described in 9. Alternative Dispute Resolution.

There is no obligation to notify or warn the alleged infringer prior to initiating infringement proceedings. However, mediation is a mandatory prerequisite for compensation actions. Failure to complete the mandatory mediation process results in dismissal of the compensation claim on procedural grounds.

The obligation for a non-exclusive licensee to notify the patent holder is described in 3.1 Necessary Parties to an Action for Infringement.

Under Turkish law, representation by an attorney-at-law is not mandatory in civil proceedings. Parties may represent themselves before civil courts, including intellectual and industrial property courts. Patent attorneys are not allowed to represent parties before the courts. They may be allowed by the courts in certain technical procedures such as during expert examination.

Preliminary injunctions are available where the patent holder demonstrates prima facie infringement upon payment of a bond or other form of security. Turkish courts generally require a court-appointed expert report before granting a preliminary injunction. This practice may delay injunctive relief and is a critical consideration in time-sensitive industries such as pharmaceuticals.

When determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court will assess:

• the balance of interests, including:
1. the potential harm the patent holder may suffer if the injunction is not granted; and
2. the potential harm the alleged infringer may suffer if the injunction is later found to have been wrongfully granted;
• whether the preliminary injunction would preserve the effectiveness of the final judgment, in particular by ensuring the cessation of an ongoing infringement; and
• whether there is a risk that:
1. changes in the current circumstances might render the enforcement of the patent holder’s rights more difficult or impossible; or
2. delay could result in inconvenience or serious harm.

Defendants may seek a reverse preliminary injunction by providing adequate security. In appropriate circumstances, courts may grant such relief, allowing the defendant to continue the allegedly infringing activities upon payment of a bond or other form of security. The amount of security required is typically higher than that imposed when a preliminary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff.

This mechanism aims to balance the interests of both parties by mitigating the risk of irreparable harm to the defendant while safeguarding the claimant against potential losses if the infringement is ultimately confirmed. When assessing requests for reverse preliminary injunctions, courts may also consider public interest concerns, including whether the withdrawal of the allegedly infringing product would adversely affect the public.

The granting of a reverse preliminary injunction remains within the court’s discretion.

The statute of limitations for patent infringement in proceedings is based on the general statute of limitations rules. The standard limitation period is two years from the date on which the patent holder becomes aware of the damage and the infringer, and an absolute ten-year limitation from the date of infringement.

Turkish law provides for ex parte evidential actions allowing patent holders to secure evidence prior to or during infringement proceedings. Such actions are particularly important in cases involving manufacturing processes or confidential production methods.

A lawsuit may be examined on the merits only if the statutory procedural prerequisites (conditions of action) are satisfied and if the statement of claim complies with the formal pleading requirements set out in the Civil Procedural Code.

As a threshold matter, the court must ascertain the existence of the conditions of action, which include, inter alia: the jurisdiction of Turkish courts; the admissibility of the judicial remedy sought; the subject-matter jurisdiction and exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the court; the parties’ capacity to sue and be sued; proper legal representation where required; the plaintiff’s authority to pursue the action; payment of the required litigation fees; compliance with any court-ordered security requirements; the plaintiff’s legal interest in bringing the action; and the absence of any pending or previously adjudicated identical action. The absence of any of these conditions may result in dismissal of the case on procedural grounds.

The statement of claim must contain certain mandatory elements. These include the name of the competent court; the names and addresses of the plaintiff and the defendant; the plaintiff’s Turkish identification number; details of any legal representatives or counsel; the subject matter of the claim and, in actions concerning monetary rights, the value of the claim; a clear and numbered summary of all factual allegations relied upon; specification of the evidence supporting each factual allegation; the legal grounds invoked; a clearly formulated statement of relief sought; and the signature of the claimant or its authorised representative.

If any of the essential elements of the statement of claim are missing, the court grants the plaintiff a final one-week period to remedy the deficiency. Failure to cure the deficiency within this period results in the action being deemed not filed. Certain core elements such as identification of the court, the factual basis of the claim, the evidence relied upon and the legal grounds cannot be remedied through this mechanism and must be properly included at the outset.

Accordingly, Turkish civil procedure follows a front-loaded pleading standard, requiring the plaintiff to present its factual and legal case in a structured and substantiated manner at the initial stage of the proceedings.       

Turkish law does not recognise class actions in the common law sense for the enforcement of IP rights. Each right holder must, as a rule, assert its own rights individually before the competent courts.

However, Turkish procedural law allows certain forms of representative or collective enforcement in limited circumstances. Professional organisations, chambers and associations may file actions in their own name where they are expressly authorised by law and where the protection of collective interests is at stake. In the field of IP, professional associations and right-holder organisations may, in certain cases, initiate actions aimed at preventing unfair competition or protecting collective professional interests, although such actions do not replace individual infringement claims brought by IP owners.

The exercise of IP rights in Türkiye is subject to certain statutory and general legal limitations. First, IP rights may not be exercised in a manner that constitutes an abuse of rights, in violation of the principle of good faith.

Secondly, the assertion of IP rights is limited by exceptions and limitations, such as private and non-commercial use, experimental use, prior use rights, exhaustion of rights, compulsory licences and public interest considerations, as provided under the relevant IP legislation.

In addition, IP rights must be exercised in compliance with competition law. The enforcement of an IP right may be restricted where it results in anti-competitive conduct, abuse of a dominant position, or unjustified refusal to license.

Finally, the right to bring an action may be restricted by procedural limitations, including statutes of limitations for damages claims, acquiescence, or loss of rights due to prolonged inaction. Where such restrictions apply, courts may dismiss the claim in whole or in part.

Infringement actions may be brought by the patent holder or an exclusive licensee, unless otherwise agreed in the licence agreement. If certain obligations are fulfilled, non-exclusive licensees can also file a patent infringement suit if the right to institute a suit is not explicitly restricted in the licence agreement. Non-exclusive licensees must request the patent holder to file the required action through a notification served on the patent holder. If the patent holder does not accept the request or does not file the requested action within three months of the date of notification, the licensee, by attaching the served notification, may file an action on its behalf to the extent required by its interests. A non-exclusive licensee must notify the patent holder that it has filed an action.

Multiple defendants may be joined in a single action where legal and factual circumstances permit.

Under the IP Code, the following acts constitute direct patent infringement:

• manufacturing a patented invention in whole or in part;
• using, selling, distributing, importing, possessing or commercialising in any other way products manufactured as a result of an infringement;
• proposing an agreement for products manufactured as a result of an infringement;
• using a patented process;
• using, selling, distributing, importing, possessing or commercialising in any other way products obtained directly through a patented process;
• proposing an agreement for products obtained directly through a patented process;
• usurping patent rights; and
• extending or transferring the rights granted based on a contractual licence or compulsory licence without permission.

Indirect patent infringement arises where a third party does not itself commit the above acts but enables infringement by supplying means that:

• relate to an essential element of the invention; and
• make the implementation of the patented invention possible.

A patent holder is entitled to prevent third parties from supplying such means to persons who are not authorised to work the patented invention. For this provision to apply, the supplier must know, or it must be evident from the circumstances, that the supplied means are suitable for implementing the invention and are intended to be used for that purpose.

However, where the means relating to an essential element of the invention consist of products commonly available on the market, no infringement occurs unless the supplier induces unauthorised persons to commit the infringement.

Process patents are infringed where the patented process is used in Türkiye or where products obtained directly through the patented process are used, sold, distributed, imported, possessed or commercialised or where an agreement is proposed for those products. The burden of proof may shift depending on the circumstances of the case.

If the subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a product, the court may require the defendant to prove that the method used to obtain the same product is different from the patented process. Where the product obtained by the patented process is new, any identical product produced without the patentee’s authorisation shall be presumed to have been obtained through the patented process. The person alleging otherwise bears the burden of proof.

The scope of protection conferred by a patent application or a patent is determined by the claims. The description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.

The claims may not be interpreted as being limited solely to the literal meaning of the terms used. Nevertheless, in determining the scope of protection, the claims may not be broadened so as to include features which, although contemplated by the inventor, were not claimed.

The claims shall be interpreted so as to provide the patent holder with the protection to which they are entitled, while also giving third parties a reasonable degree of legal certainty regarding the scope of protection.

In determining the scope of the claims, the statements made by the applicant or patent holder during the prosecution of the patent or during the term of validity of the patent shall be taken into consideration.

Where the patent contains examples relating to the invention, the claims shall not be interpreted as being limited to such examples. In particular, the fact that a product or process possesses additional features not found in the examples disclosed in the patent, or does not include the features in those examples, or cannot achieve every purpose or characteristic specified in those examples, shall not exclude the product or process from the scope of protection afforded by the claims.

The scope of protection conferred by a patent application for the period prior to grant is determined by the published claims of the application. However, the granted form of the patent, or its amended form following opposition or invalidity proceedings, shall retroactively determine the scope of protection conferred by the application, provided that the scope has not been broadened.

Doctrine of Equivalents

Turkish courts apply the doctrine of equivalents using a function–way–result analysis. For the existence of an infringement, the doctrine of equivalents asks whether the alleged product or process performs substantially the same function, in the same way, and leads to the same result as the feature of the claim.

Not only is the literal meaning of the words used in the claim taken into consideration, but the equivalents are also taken into consideration in patent infringement litigation. Patent infringement is assessed first by the comparison of the properties of the accused product or process with the literal meaning of the words. If the assessment of the court-appointed experts does not reveal a literal infringement, then the usual practice of the experts is to evaluate the equivalents.

In patent infringement proceedings, defendants may raise a variety of substantive and procedural defences to challenge the infringement claim.

First, the defendant may argue that no infringement exists, either because the alleged acts do not fall within the scope of the patent claims or because the acts complained of have not been carried out.

The defendant may also contend that the allegedly infringing acts have not yet occurred and that there is no imminent risk of infringement, particularly in cases involving claims of threatened infringement.

Another important defence is the prior use right, whereby a person who was already using the invention in good faith before the priority or filing date of the patent may continue such use within certain limits, in accordance with Article 87 of the IP Code.

Defendants may further rely on defences developed in case law, such as arguments that the accused product or variant forms part of the state of the art or falls outside the legitimate scope of protection. These include, in particular, the Gillette defence and the Formstein defence, which aim to prevent patent protection from extending to subject matter that lacks novelty or an inventive step over the prior art.

In cases involving standard-essential patents, defendants may invoke a FRAND licence defence, arguing that the patent holder has failed to comply with its obligation to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

The defence of exhaustion of patent rights may also be raised where the patented product has been lawfully placed on the market by the patent holder or with its consent. Turkish law recognises specific rules on exhaustion, and this defence applies only to product patents.

Additional common defences include experimental use and the Bolar exemption, the abuse of the right to bring an action, and loss of rights due to acquiescence (where the patent holder has knowingly remained inactive against infringement for a significant period and the infringer has acted in good faith).

Expert evidence plays a central role in patent-related proceedings. In all types of actions, including preliminary injunctions, infringement, damages, invalidity and evidential actions, the court appoints a panel of experts, as Turkish judges do not have a technical background. Such panels typically consist of one Turkish or European patent attorney and two technical experts with expertise relevant to the field of the invention.

According to the established case law of the regional appellate courts, in patent infringement actions the courts await the first expert report before ruling on requests for a preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, even where an expert report concludes that infringement exists, the court retains discretion as to whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

The examination of the merits begins with the appointment of the expert panel. Following submission of the expert report, the parties are entitled to raise objections to the experts’ findings. If the court considers these objections to be well-founded, it may either refer the case back to the same panel for an additional report addressing the objections, or appoint a new panel of experts to prepare an additional report. Where conflicting expert opinions arise, the court may order further expert examinations.

If damages are claimed, the calculation of compensation typically requires a separate expert examination, usually conducted by one or more financial experts.

In addition to court-appointed experts, private expert reports submitted by the parties are admissible as evidence. The court may also invite both court-appointed and party-appointed experts to hearings and cross-examine their opinions in the presence of the parties’ patent attorneys and counsel-at-law.

There is no separate procedure for the interpretation of the claims; the interpretation is carried out in the respective proceedings themselves by the court-appointed experts.

Under Turkish procedural law, third parties may become involved in ongoing proceedings through intervention or third-party notice, allowing them to present their views and protect their legal interests where the outcome of the dispute may affect them.

A third party that has a legal interest in the outcome of the dispute may participate in the proceedings as an intervening party by supporting one of the existing parties. An intervening party does not become an independent party to the action but may submit written statements, present evidence, and offer legal and technical opinions to assist the court. In practice, intervention is frequently used by licensees, suppliers or manufacturers whose commercial interests may be affected by the court’s decision.

In addition, a party to the proceedings may issue a third-party notice to another person where it considers that the outcome of the case may give rise to a right of recourse or otherwise affect that person’s legal position. Upon receipt of such notice, the third party may choose to intervene in the proceedings, although it is not obliged to do so. While a third party that has been notified does not automatically acquire party status, the notifying party may rely on the effects of the judgment against that third party in subsequent recourse actions.

Under the IP Code, a patent may be invalidated on several substantive and formal grounds. These include lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and lack of industrial applicability, as well as insufficient disclosure, added subject matter extending beyond the content of the original application, and subject matter excluded from patentability. Invalidity may be claimed at any time during the term of the patent and five years after the expiry of the patent. It may be raised either as a standalone action or as a counterclaim in infringement proceedings.

Where the grounds for invalidity affect only certain claims of the patent, courts may declare the patent partially invalid while maintaining the validity of the remaining claims. Partial invalidity allows the patent to remain in force in an amended form, provided that the surviving claims meet all patentability requirements and can stand independently.

Under Turkish law generally, patent claims cannot be amended after grant and limitations are not permitted once the patent has been issued. National law does allow amendments, however, during the post-grant opposition phase before TURKPATENT.

For European patents validated in Türkiye, the situation is different due to the interaction with the European Patent Convention Article 138(3). This Article provides that in proceedings on the validity of a European patent, the proprietor has the right to limit the patent by amending the claims, and that the limited version of the patent shall form the basis for the proceedings.

Invalidity and infringement actions are frequently examined in parallel, particularly where invalidity is raised as a defence or counterclaim in infringement proceedings. Courts have the discretion to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of a separate invalidity action, especially where the validity challenge appears prima facie serious and may be determinative of the dispute. However, a stay is not automatic and depends on the circumstances of each case, including procedural economy and the balance of interests between the parties.

IP disputes are governed primarily by the Civil Procedural Code, as there is no separate procedural regime exclusively applicable to IP litigation. Accordingly, general civil procedure rules apply, subject to certain practice-driven particularities arising from the technical nature of IP disputes.

Proceedings follow a front-loaded structure, consisting of an exchange of written submissions (writ of summons, statement of defence, reply and second defence), followed by an examination phase and the decision stage. Due to the technical complexity of IP matters, the examination phase is largely dominated by expert evidence, with court-appointed expert panels playing a decisive role in the assessment of infringement, validity and damages.

IP disputes are heard by specialised Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Courts, where available. In locations where such specialised courts have not been established, IP cases are handled by designated civil or commercial courts acting with IP jurisdiction.

Cases are decided by one judge in first instance court, who do not have technical backgrounds. As a result, judges rely heavily on court-appointed expert panels for technical assessments. Decisions of first-instance courts are subject to review by regional appellate courts (three judges), and, by the Supreme Court (five judges), which ensures uniformity of case law.

Settlement between the parties is permitted at any stage of the proceedings until the decision is finalised. Courts actively encourage amicable resolution.

Mediation plays a significant role in IP disputes involving monetary claims. Mandatory mediation applies to compensation claims, including those arising from patent infringement. For other patent-related disputes, such as infringement or invalidity actions without a damages component, mediation remains optional and may be pursued at the parties’ discretion.

Turkish courts are not formally bound by precedent. However, decisions of the Supreme Court and the regional appellate courts are of significant persuasive authority, and first-instance courts generally follow established case law to ensure consistency and legal certainty.

Foreign court decisions are not binding on Turkish courts but may be taken into consideration, particularly in patent disputes involving parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions or European patents, where the factual background and legal issues are substantially similar.

In practice, foreign judgments are most influential in technically complex patent disputes and in cases involving harmonised legal concepts.

Courts may grant preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent ongoing or future infringement.

The patent holder is entitled to seek a preliminary injunction in the following circumstances:

• in the context of the main infringement action;
• in the context of an evidential action; or
• independently, prior to or outside substantive proceedings.

In each of these scenarios, a preliminary injunction may be requested and enforced ex parte or inter partes, subject to the court’s discretion. In practice, however, Turkish courts tend to be conservative in granting ex parte preliminary injunctions in patent infringement cases.

Preliminary injunction requests may be renewed at any stage of the proceedings where new developments arise or where there is a material change in circumstances.

Requests for preliminary injunctions are treated as urgent matters under Turkish procedural law. A key requirement is the submission of substantial evidence demonstrating prima facie infringement, sufficient to persuade the court that there is a risk of infringement which is accomplished by a court-appointed expert report.

Another requirement is the deposit of a bond or security, at the court’s discretion, as a condition for the enforcement of the preliminary injunction once the decision is rendered. The security must be deposited, and a request for execution of the injunction must be filed, within one week from the issuance of the preliminary injunction order. Failure to comply with these requirements within the one-week period results in the automatic lifting of the injunction.

Parties that fail to comply with a preliminary injunction order or act against them may be subject to disciplinary imprisonment of up to six months.

Under the Civil Procedural Law and the IP Code, an IP right holder may seek permanent injunctions. Such injunctions may include orders to cease the manufacture, sale, distribution and marketing of infringing products, as well as the seizure and destruction of infringing goods.

In addition, the court may order the confiscation of infringing products and adopt measures aimed at preventing the continuation of the infringement. These measures may include, in particular, modification of the shape or appearance of seized products, or the seizure and alteration of machinery, devices or apparatus used in the infringing activities.

The court also determines the transfer of ownership of confiscated infringing products and may decide to deduct the value of such products, devices or machinery from the total amount of compensation awarded.

Furthermore, the court may order the publication of the judgment, in whole or in summary form, in daily newspapers or through other appropriate media.

In infringement actions, three categories of damages are available: material damages (including both actual loss and lost income); reputational damages; and moral damages.

Material damages encompass not only the patent holder’s actual loss but also the non-realised income. Non-realised income is assessed according to one of the following methods, at the discretion of the right holder:

• Lost profits: the earnings the patent holder would likely have obtained had the infringement not occurred;
• Infringer’s profits: the net income the infringer gained through the unauthorised use of the protected right; or
• Reasonable royalty: the hypothetical licence fee the infringer would have paid if it had lawfully used the invention under a licence agreement.

For the first two methods, the court may increase the calculated non-realised income if it is persuaded that the patent played a decisive role in generating customer demand.

When determining non-realised income, the court considers factors such as the patent’s economic value, the remaining duration of protection at the time of infringement, and the type, nature and number of licences granted for that patent.

If the court concludes that the right holder has not fulfilled its obligation to use the invention, the IP Code requires that non-realised income be calculated based on an exemplary licence fee.

Reputational and moral damages are granted at the court’s discretion and generally in modest amounts. In awarding such damages, the court will assess:

• whether the claimant suffered any non-material harm;
• whether the requested amount is reasonable;
• whether the amount sought aligns with common practice in the relevant industry;
• whether the claimant bears any fault; and
• the economic situation of the parties and of Türkiye.

A prevailing defendant is entitled to reimbursement of the limited amount of legal costs. If a preliminary injunction is granted against the defendant during the proceedings, the defendant has right to request damages, if any, caused by unjust preliminary injunction.

All types of remedies are described in 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee.

Decisions rendered in invalidity actions are not enforceable until they become final. Likewise, even where a patent is held to be valid and infringed by the court of first instance, such a decision is not immediately enforceable. Accordingly, it is crucial to obtain a preliminary injunction before the court renders its final judgment, as the preliminary injunction provides the effective means to enforce the decision in practice and bring the infringement to an end pending finalisation of the proceedings.

The Turkish judicial system operates on three levels. Disputes are first brought before the first-instance courts, which are located in almost every city and district in Türkiye. Decisions rendered by first-instance courts may be appealed to the regional appellate courts.

Appeals before the regional appellate courts are examined by a panel of three non-technical judges. The regional appellate court may:

• uphold the first-instance decision and dismiss the appeal;
• overturn the first-instance decision and render a new judgment; or
• overturn the first-instance decision and remand the case to the first-instance court for retrial.

The regional appellate court may hold hearings during the appeal proceedings and, if it considers that further technical examination is necessary, may refer the case to a new panel of experts. In practice, however, such referrals are rare.

Decisions of the regional appellate courts may be further appealed to the Supreme Court, which adjudicates in panels of five non-technical judges. Unlike the regional appellate courts, the Supreme Court does not reassess the facts of the case but instead only reviews whether the law has been correctly applied.

A decision upheld by the Supreme Court is final and binding. Where the Supreme Court reverses a decision, the case is remanded to the court whose decision has been overturned, either the court of first instance or the regional appellate court, for further proceedings in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning.

Regional appellate courts review both facts and law, whereas the Supreme Court only focuses on legal correctness.

A plaintiff may incur various pre-litigation costs depending on the nature of the dispute. First, where the claim includes a request for damages, completion of mandatory mediation is required before filing a lawsuit. Mediator fees are determined in accordance with the applicable official tariff.

Prior to filing a lawsuit, additional expenses may arise in connection with notarisation (most notably for powers of attorney), certified translations and other document-related costs. Although legal representation is not mandatory, it is commonly used in practice, and attorneys’ fees are freely agreed between the client and counsel, subject to the minimum fee schedule issued by the Turkish Bar Association.

In technically complex disputes, particularly in IP and patent matters, parties often incur costs for private expert opinions, technical analyses, market studies or product examinations before initiating proceedings. Where there is a risk that evidence may be lost or altered, a party may also file an evidential action or notary determination prior to the main lawsuit, which entails court fees and expert expenses at the pre-litigation stage.

Court filing fees are generally payable upon filing the lawsuit, not before. Nevertheless, in complex and technical cases, the preparatory phase preceding litigation may involve substantial costs, which can be decisive for the effective conduct of the case.

Court fees are calculated in accordance with the Law on Fees and depend primarily on the nature and value of the claim. Court fees are generally payable upon filing the lawsuit and, where applicable, during the course of the proceedings.

For non-monetary claims such as actions for injunctions, invalidity, or infringement, a fixed court fee applies. This fixed fee is determined annually and is relatively modest. In such cases, no proportional fee based on claim value is required.

For monetary claims, including compensation actions, court fees are calculated on a proportional basis according to the claimed amount. The proportional fee is ultimately borne by the losing party.

In addition to filing and proportional fees, parties are required to pay advance expenses to cover procedural costs such as expert examinations, notifications, and inspections. These advances are deposited at the outset of the proceedings and may be replenished if deemed insufficient during the trial.

Where a lawsuit combines monetary and non-monetary claims, court fees are calculated separately for each component. Appeals also trigger additional court fees, calculated either on a fixed or proportional basis depending on the nature of the appealed claim.

As a general rule, court fees and procedural expenses are awarded against the losing party, although courts allocate costs proportionally where each party partially succeeds.

The losing party is required to reimburse the winning party for court fees, expenses and attorneys’ fees. The attorneys’ fees are limited to a statutory rate based on the value in dispute decided by the Union of Turkish Bar Association.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are playing an increasingly important role in the resolution of IP disputes in Türkiye, particularly in relation to monetary claims and ongoing commercial relationships.

The primary ADR mechanism is mediation. Under Turkish law, mandatory mediation applies to compensation (damages) claims arising from IP infringement. Accordingly, where a damages claim is asserted either as a standalone action or together with infringement claims, the plaintiff must first apply for mediation before initiating court proceedings. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the case on procedural grounds. For non-monetary IP disputes, such as actions for injunctions, invalidity, or determination of infringement without a damages component, mediation remains optional.

Mediation proceedings are conducted by accredited mediators and are confidential. If the parties reach a settlement, the agreement will be rendered enforceable by obtaining an enforcement annotation from the competent court.

In addition to mediation, parties may resort to arbitration. While issues such as patent validity and registration-related matters are not arbitrable, contractual IP disputes may be resolved through arbitration. Arbitration is commonly preferred in cross-border IP agreements due to its confidentiality and flexibility.

Finally, parties may engage in negotiation or settlement discussions at any stage of the dispute, including during pending court proceedings. Courts generally encourage amicable resolution, particularly in technically complex IP disputes where litigation may be lengthy and costly.

Under Turkish law, IP rights may, as a rule, be freely assigned, in whole or in part. Assignment is subject to certain formal and substantive requirements, which vary depending on the type of IP right.

For industrial property rights (including patents, trade marks, designs and utility models), the assignment must be made in writing.

For trade marks, designs and patents, any change in ownership resulting from an assignment may be recorded in the official Register and published in the Official Bulletin, provided that the required information and documents are submitted to TURKPATENT. These include:

• a duly completed request form;
• information evidencing payment of the official fee;
• the assignment agreement, indicating the relevant design and patent application or registration numbers, as well as the trade mark registration number and trade mark name; and
• where the assignment agreement is executed in a foreign language, a notarised or sworn Turkish translation.

In addition, for patent assignments, the assignment fee must be either expressly stated in the assignment agreement itself or declared in the request form submitted for recordal.

The procedure for assigning an IP right is described in 10.1 Requirements or Restrictions for Assignment of Intellectual Property Rights.

Under Turkish law, IP rights may be licensed, in whole or in part. Licensing is primarily governed by the IP Code for industrial property rights and by the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works for copyright.

For industrial property rights (including patents, trade marks, designs and utility models), licence agreements must be concluded in writing. Licences may be exclusive or non-exclusive, and may be limited in terms of scope, territory, duration or field of use. Unless otherwise agreed, a licence does not confer the right to grant sub-licences.

For patents, the IP Code recognises both voluntary licences and compulsory licences. Compulsory licences may be granted by the competent authority in exceptional circumstances, such as lack of use of the patent or public interest considerations, and are subject to statutory conditions and limitations.

In the case of joint ownership, licensing requires the consent of all co-owners, unless otherwise agreed between them. Where the IP right is subject to pledges, security interests or existing licences, such encumbrances may limit the scope or effects of a new licence.

Although not mandatory for validity, recordal of licence agreements for industrial property rights with TURKPATENT is required for the licence to be asserted against third parties. Recorded licences are published in the Official Bulletin.

Under Turkish law, trade marks, designs, patents and utility models may be licensed by way of a written licence agreement.

For all industrial property rights, the licence recordal procedure requires submission of: (i) a request form; (ii) a licence agreement signed by the licensor and licensee, identifying the licensed right and specifying the licence duration and fee, if any; and (iii) evidence of payment of the official fee. Where the licence agreement is executed in a foreign language, a sworn Turkish translation must also be provided.

The procedure is largely uniform across different IP rights. Notable distinctions include that trade mark licences must specify the licensed goods or services, and design licences must identify the relevant design application or registration (including serial numbers in multiple applications).