Patents as a silent threat: how Google and Microsoft could strike Czech AI search engines

A patent-risk analysis for Czech developers of AI search engines shows that while the Czech Republic currently enjoys a relatively safe position thanks to its non-ratification of the UPC Agreement, this could change quickly. Although the key Google and Microsoft patents on RAG and search-result summarization do not yet apply in the Czech Republic, Czech companies can be sued in Germany for serving German users, and the Unified Patent Court claims jurisdiction even beyond member states.

When a Czech technology company develops its own AI assistant — with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) features, with summarization of search results, and with an ambition to monetize through a dynamic results page with advertising — it does so in relative peace. After all, the key American patents held by Google and Microsoft on the transformer architecture, on RAG, or on generative summarization of search results do not apply in the Czech Republic. But this peace is illusory.

Google has a pending application at the European Patent Office (EPO) for generative summarization of search results. Neighboring Germany and Austria are full members of the unitary patent system. And since January 2025 the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has claimed jurisdiction even over countries that are not its members — which, as a consequence, also affects the Czech Republic.

This article maps which specific patents threaten the development of AI search engines in the Czech Republic and the surrounding countries, where the protection is stronger and where weaker, and what Czech companies can do about it.

Patent protection is strictly territorial. An American patent (USPTO) applies exclusively within the territory of the USA. For a patent to apply in Europe, it must either be filed as a European application at the EPO and, after grant, validated in specific states, or — since June 2023 — unitary effect can be requested, covering all UPC member states at once.

All of the Czech Republic's neighboring countries are members of the European Patent Organisation: Germany since 1977, Austria since 1979, Slovakia since 2002, and Poland since 2004. This means that European patents granted by the EPO can be validated in any of them.

The fundamental difference, however, lies in participation in the unitary patent system and the UPC.

Germany and Austria have ratified the UPC Agreement and are full members. The unitary patent applies here automatically. Google or Microsoft do not have to validate a patent separately in each country — it is enough to request unitary effect and the patent covers all member states at once. As of March 2026 there are 18 of them (Romania was the most recent to join, in September 2024).

The Czech Republic signed the UPC Agreement in February 2013 but has not yet ratified it. In 2017 the Industrial Property Office commissioned a study (attributed to PricewaterhouseCoopers) which, according to available information, recommended waiting and observing how the system works in practice. The study reportedly flagged three main risks: a potential conflict with the Czech constitution, negative financial impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the language barrier. The Czech Republic thus remains in a "sign and wait" state.

Slovakia is in the same situation as the Czech Republic: it has signed but not ratified.

Poland, although it participated in the enhanced cooperation on the unitary patent, did not sign the UPC Agreement at all, in part out of concerns about the impact on Polish small and medium-sized enterprises.

An analysis of the patent portfolios of the large technology companies yields the following picture of risks for Czech developers of AI search.

Transformer architecture (Google, US 10 452 978 B2). A fundamental patent covering the encoder and decoder architecture with the attention mechanism, the basis of all modern large language models. Expiration in May 2038. Key finding: this patent has no European equivalent. Google filed neither an international (PCT) application nor a European application for it. The transformer architecture is therefore not patent-protected in Europe. Risk in the EU: low.

Generative summarization of search results (Google, US 11 769 017 B1 and EP 4627452 A1). The patent covers the selection of documents based on a combination of query-dependent, query-independent, and user-dependent factors, processing the content using a large language model, generating natural-language summaries with citations to sources, and reliability scoring. The European application EP 4627452 A1 was filed on 29 December 2023 via an international application (PCT/US2023/086339) and proceedings at the EPO are ongoing. Expiration of the American patent: 20 March 2043. If the European patent is granted and validated in Germany (potentially as a unitary patent), it represents a direct risk to any AI system that summarizes search results. Risk in the EU: medium, rising.

RAG architecture (Microsoft, US 2024/0346256 A1 and PCT/US2024/022753). The application covers generating a feature vector from a query, comparing cosine similarity against a threshold parameter, and prioritizing retrieved information over the model's training data. The application is in the international (PCT) phase; a European application may follow. The key claims are very specific (a particular threshold, a particular metric), which makes it easier to design around the patent. Risk in the EU: low to medium.

Advertising in a conversational interface (Please Don't Go LLC, US 10 203 861 B2 and US 10 503 386 B2). Patents on advertising in a virtual assistant interface. No European equivalent found. Risk in the EU: low.

Further Google applications in the field of AI search. Google has several other pending applications covering specific aspects — prompt-based query expansion, generative AI for digital workflows, an architecture for verifying AI-generated answers. Most are in the American or international phase. A systematic move into Europe is likely.

Germany is a key jurisdiction for Czech technology companies for several reasons.

It is the largest market in the EU with the most active enforcement of patent rights. The German courts (especially in Düsseldorf, Mannheim, and Munich) have extensive experience with patent litigation and are known for swift preliminary injunctions. Moreover, the London Agreement means that validation of a European patent in Germany does not require a translation (provided the proceedings at the EPO were conducted in English, French, or German) — it is therefore cheap and routine. Google and Microsoft almost certainly validate their European patents in Germany.

The principle of indirect patent infringement (in German law, Section 10 PatG) means that a provider of a service operated from servers in the Czech Republic may be sued in Germany if a German user uses that service. If Google were to validate its patent on summarization of search results in Germany and a Czech AI search engine were accessible to German users, a potential collision arises.

Until now, Czech companies could rely on the assumption that the Unified Patent Court has no jurisdiction over them, because the Czech Republic has not ratified the relevant agreement. A UPC decision from January 2025 (FUJIFILM v. KODAK, Düsseldorf Local Division, case no. UPC_CFI_355/2023) calls this assumption into question.

In this case, the UPC declared that it has jurisdiction to rule on infringement of a European patent even in the United Kingdom — a country that is not a member of the UPC (and, after Brexit, not even a member of the EU). The court argued that its international jurisdiction is governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation (EU 1215/2012), not by the more narrowly framed Article 34 of the UPC Agreement. Under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, a person domiciled in a member state may be sued in that state regardless of their nationality.

The practical consequence: if a Czech company (or its subsidiary) is established in Germany, Austria, or another UPC member state, it may be sued before the UPC for patent infringement even on Czech territory. As the law firm HAVEL & PARTNERS pointed out in an analysis dated 14 February 2025, this directly affects Czech and Slovak companies.

With this decision the UPC did not create a new doctrine but applied the principles of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which all EU courts apply. It must be emphasized, however, that the court was ruling on the situation of the United Kingdom (a non-member of both the EU and the UPC), whereas the Czech Republic is an EU member, which makes the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation even more direct. In any case, for Czech companies this means that "being outside the UPC" is not the same as "being outside its reach".

An AI assistant with search typically combines three components, each of which has a different patent profile.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Query vectorization, vector search, cosine similarity. Microsoft's patent is specific (a particular threshold, the cosine metric), so designing around it is relatively easy: use a different threshold, a different metric (dot product, a hybrid BM25-and-dense-vector approach), or a combined search method. The concept of RAG itself is not patentable.

Summarization of the results page. Here the risk is highest. Google's application EP 4627452 A1 covers the entire chain: selection of documents according to multi-factor criteria, processing by a large language model, generating a natural-language summary with citations to sources, reliability scoring, and revision based on user feedback. If a Czech search engine implements a similar procedure, a collision depends on the degree of overlap with the patent's specific claims. The key point is that RAG as a general concept is not patentable, but a specific implementation of document selection and summary generation may be.

Monetization through an ad panel next to the conversation. The concept of a dynamic panel next to a text conversation, where the results change according to the user's recognized intent. The patents on advertising in a conversational interface (Please Don't Go LLC) have no European equivalents. Google and Microsoft do integrate advertising into AI answers (Google's ad listings in AI Overviews, Bing's ads in Copilot), but patents on specific monetization models are difficult to enforce in the EU — business methods as such are not patentable under Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Based on an analysis of the patent claims, there are relatively safe approaches.

Use alternative metrics for search — not cosine similarity with a fixed threshold, but hybrid scoring (BM25 together with dense vectors) or a dot product with a dynamic threshold. Implement a different method of document selection — not the specific combination of factors described in Google's patent, but other relevance signals. Present the results in a way other than as text passages with citations to source documents. Avoid dynamic revision of the summary based on user feedback (a specific Google claim).

In general, the more specific the implementation and the more it differs from the claims in the patent, the lower the risk.

The situation differs significantly by jurisdiction.

Germany has been an EPO member since 1977, has ratified the UPC Agreement, and is a UPC member. The London Agreement ensures cheap validation. It is the largest market with the most active enforcement. For Czech companies it represents a high risk under any access to German users.

Austria has been an EPO member since 1979, has ratified the UPC Agreement, and is a UPC member. A smaller market, but automatically covered by the unitary patent. Medium risk.

Poland has been an EPO member since 2004 but did not sign the UPC Agreement. The unitary patent does not apply here. Validation of a classic European patent requires a full translation into Polish — it is costly and the large players often do not do it. Low risk, but not zero (classic validation is still possible).

Slovakia has been an EPO member since 2002, has signed the UPC Agreement, but not ratified it. The same situation as the Czech Republic. Validation of a classic European patent requires a full translation. Low risk.

The Czech Republic is an EPO member, has signed the UPC Agreement, but not ratified it. The unitary patent does not apply here. Validation of a classic European patent requires a translation. Large companies typically do not validate in the Czech Republic. Low direct risk, but with several caveats: first, indirect risk via German users; second, UPC jurisdiction via the Brussels I bis Regulation; and third — if the Czech Republic ratifies the UPC Agreement, all existing unitary patents will automatically extend to Czech territory.

Software patents are weaker in Europe than in the USA. The EPO's two-step approach requires demonstrating a "technical effect" going beyond mere automation. Purely algorithmic claims (such as "use the transformer architecture for summarization") would probably not pass EPO examination. Only specific technical implementations that solve a concrete technical problem are patentable.

Strong prior art exists. In October 2021 Naver introduced the AiRSearch service, which used AI to personalize search results in so-called smart blocks — that is, before Google launched the SGE / AI Overviews feature (2023–2024). Perplexity launched AI search in December 2022. ChatGPT with Bing integration was operating from the beginning of 2023. All of this constitutes prior art that can be used to challenge the validity of patents (in particular Google's patent US 2024/0289407 A1 on conversational search, whose priority date is February 2024 — by that date at least three publicly operated AI conversational search systems existed).

Google's transformer patent has no European equivalent — the fundamental architecture is therefore not protected in Europe.

Czech companies operating services primarily for the Czech market from servers in the Czech Republic have a relatively strong position thanks to the principle of territoriality. If all patented steps take place on servers in the Czech Republic and the service is not actively offered in Germany, the risk decreases.

The Czech Republic today stands in a patent shadow. It has not ratified the UPC Agreement, the large players typically do not validate patents here, and Czech companies can relatively freely develop AI technologies that elsewhere would run up against Google's or Microsoft's patent claims.

But this situation need not last. Google is systematically expanding its patent portfolio into Europe (EP 4627452 A1 on summarization of search results). The UPC is claiming jurisdiction even outside member states. If the Czech Republic ratifies the UPC Agreement — and political pressure for ratification is growing — all existing unitary patents will immediately extend to Czech territory.

For Czech technology companies, three practical recommendations follow. First: conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis focused on the key European applications (in particular EP 4627452 A1) and evaluate the overlap with their own implementation. Second: implement design-around strategies for the highest-risk components — especially summarization of the results page and document selection. And third: monitor the progress of proceedings at the EPO and the status of ratification of the UPC Agreement in the Czech Republic.

The patent safety of a small market is a strategic advantage, but only for as long as it lasts.

This article is a synthesis of patent research carried out from January to March 2026 across the USPTO, EPO (Espacenet), WIPO (PatentScope), and Google Patents databases. The status of the unitary patent and the UPC was verified as of March 2026 on the official UPC website and in specialist literature. The analysis of collision with specific claims is indicative and does not replace a professional freedom-to-operate opinion from a patent attorney.

Key sources: decision case no. UPC_CFI_355/2023 (FUJIFILM v. KODAK, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025), HAVEL & PARTNERS analysis of 14 February 2025, the PwC study for the Czech Industrial Property Office (2017), Bird & Bird analysis of the impact of the UPC on the Czech Republic, Herbert Smith Freehills overview of UPC member states.

Transparency of the creative process

The conception, structure, and editorial line of the article are the work of the author, who prepared the content outline, established the key theses, and directed the entire creative process. Generative AI (Claude Opus 4.6, Anthropic) was used as a tool for research, fact-checking, and fleshing out the author's draft.

The author verified the key findings and approved the final wording. No part of the text was published without conscious authorial control. Factual data were verified against the publicly available sources cited in the text.

This procedure complies with the transparency principles of EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act). #poweredByAI