A recent survey conducted by London-based law firm Allen & Overy LLP revealed that majority of the companies that currently holds patents in the euro zone favors the new unitary patent system and the Unified Patent Court in the region. About 75% of the respondents said that the new system and dedicated European court will benefit them, and half of them has plans to use the new filing system for some of their current of future patents.

The survey has provided an insight on how companies seek to reduce the time and the cost spent on patent claims. Bloomberg said that having a single European court to handle patent claims was a preferred alternative as oppose to enforcing patents in the US, which would require more time to be able to reach trial, according to a separate study. California-based legal analysis company Lex Machina said although suits filed in the US has increased 12% last year to 6,092, the suits are concentrated in a few districts.

The firm's global head of intellectual property litigation, Nicola Dagg, said about the results, "Where companies have made up their minds, one thing that is clear is they are preparing to opt in their crown jewel patents, their most valuable ones. We see this as likely to be giving rise to a shift toward Europe and the UPC in Europe as a forum for patent disputes."

Bloomberg said that the new patent filing system in Europ will have applicants seek a single patent only as oppose to making applications to several countries. The UFC has jurisdiction in 25 countries, which effectively reduces the cost of litigation in Europe more as it already is, which is at least five times lower than the cost of litigation in the US. The consumer market in Europe is also double the size in the US at about 600 million people, which makes it more attractive, Allen & Overy study said.

On the other hand, the law firm said that study also indicated that several of the companies were not confident about the new system and has yet to be prepared for it. About two-thirds of the respondents have also stated that they were not clear on the costs or how the new court would actually work.

Dagg added, "A lot of them haven't made up their minds. They say ‘when we come to these secondary patents, we haven't yet carried out a cost-benefit analysis.'"