Not every useful improvement clears the high bar of a patent. Iran’s 2024 Industrial Property Act keeps a second, lighter form of protection — the utility model — for practical product improvements that are new but not necessarily inventive. This guide explains what it covers, how it compares with a patent, and when it is the smarter filing.
What a utility model protects
A utility model, under Article 74, is a new technical solution relating to the shape or structure of a product — or a combination of the two — that improves the product’s performance. It is registrable where it is new and has industrial applicability.
Two limits define its scope. Protection covers products only, never processes; and it does not extend to chemical, compound, or composite substances. So a redesigned mechanical component can be a utility model, but a new manufacturing method or a new chemical formulation cannot.
How it differs from a patent
The decisive difference is the threshold. A patent requires novelty, an inventive step, and industrial applicability. A utility model drops the inventive-step requirement — it needs only to be new and industrially applicable. That makes it reachable for incremental improvements that would fail the “not obvious to a skilled person” test a patent demands.
The trade-off is duration. A utility model certificate lasts three years from the filing date, renewable for further three-year periods on payment of the fee, with each renewal requested at least six months before expiry (Article 76). A lapsed certificate can still be renewed within six months of expiry, on a penalty equal to twice the registration fee. That is a much shorter horizon than a patent’s twenty years — the price of the lower threshold.
Cost and examination
A utility model is also cheaper to obtain. The issuance fee is thirty percent of the patent issuance fee, though the annual renewal fees are the same as a patent’s (Article 78). Examination is lighter and quicker: once the formal conditions are met and there is no prior registration of the same model, the Registration Authority notifies its decision within two months.
Switching between a patent and a utility model
One of the Act’s more useful features is flexibility between the two rights. Under Article 79, a patent applicant can change the request to a utility model during examination, or within twenty days of a rejection — keeping the original filing date. The conversion also works the other way: a utility model applicant can move to a patent on paying the fee difference, provided the substantive patent conditions are met. Simultaneous filing of both is even possible.
That flexibility is the practical heart of utility-model strategy. An applicant unsure whether an improvement will survive the inventive-step test can file for a patent and fall back to a utility model if the examiner objects — securing protection rather than losing the filing date.
When a utility model is the right choice
A utility model tends to fit where the commercial life of a product is short, where the improvement is real but incremental, or where speed and cost matter more than a twenty-year monopoly. For a product with a two-to-three-year market window, the shorter term is rarely a real constraint, and the lower threshold and cost are a clear advantage.
For inventions with genuine inventive height and a long commercial life, a patent remains the stronger right. The two are not rivals so much as tools for different situations — and, because the Act lets you convert between them, the choice is not final at the moment of filing.
For the full framework around inventions generally — patentability, ownership, term and enforcement — see our companion guide on patents in Iran.
This is general information on the Industrial Property Act, not legal advice. For a specific matter, speak with HENGAM’s patent and litigation team.
Sadegh Shamshiri
Sadegh leads on legal strategy and represents high-profile clients in IP litigation and enforcement — across trademarks, patents, designs, copyright, and domain names, including complex multi-jurisdictional disputes.