The patent systems of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan were formed in the conditions of a common legal tradition and are largely harmonized due to the participation of both countries in international agreements – the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the Eurasian Patent Convention. 

At the same time, the national peculiarities of legal regulation and, most importantly, the practice of patent examination and law enforcement lead to significant differences in the strategy for the protection of the results of intellectual activity. 

In the Russian Federation, patent relations are regulated by Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and the functions of examination and registration are carried out by Rospatent. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, the key act is the Law On Patents, and the authorized body is the National Institute of Intellectual Property (NIIP). Despite the similarity of formal norms, the differences are manifested primarily in the depth and rigor of the examination, which is especially noticeable in certain areas of technology. 

In both countries, the objects of patent protection are inventions, utility models and industrial designs. Utility models in the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan are limited to devices. 

However, in practice, the approaches differ. For example, when patenting a mechanical unit or structural element in the Russian Federation, the examination, as a rule, strictly analyzes each feature of the claims for obviousness and regards many solutions as the result of “ordinary engineering optimization.” This often leads to a narrowing of the claims or a refusal to grant a patent. 

In Kazakhstan, similar applications are more likely to undergo examination without radical adjustment of the claims, especially if the applicant correctly described the technical result. Thus, for mechanical solutions, Kazakhstan is often a faster and more predictable jurisdiction, while a Russian patent provides more stringent but reliable protection. 

Both in the Russian Federation and in Kazakhstan, a mandatory substantive examination is carried out for inventions.  

A significant difference is the approach to the unity of invention: in the Russian Federation it is interpreted much more strictly than in Kazakhstan, and requires the presence of common distinguishing technical features, simply referring one independent claim to another will not be enough. 

The level of formalism and the approach to assessing the inventive step also differ significantly. Let’s consider a practical case in the field of pharmaceutical engineering. 

When patenting pharmaceutical inventions (chemical compound, composition, medical application), the Russian examination requires: 

• Confirmation of an unexpected technical result (effect), 

• Sufficient experimental data, and 

• A strict cause-and-effect relationship between the features of the formula and the declared technical result. 

Secondary medical uses and derivatives of known substances often encounter failures. 

In Kazakhstan, the approach to assessing the inventive step in pharmaceuticals is more flexible: fewer experimental examples are allowed, and the technical result can be formulated more broadly. Therefore, Kazakhstan is often used as a primary or parallel jurisdiction for pharmaceutical developments with a moderate approach to assessing the inventive step, while the Russian Federation requires an enhanced evidence base and confirmation of the achievement of the declared pharmacological properties. 

Concerning computer-implemented inventions and IT solutions, formally, in both countries, computer programs are not subject to patent protection. Patentability is possible only if there are technical means and a technical result is achieved, and only as an invention. 

In the Russian Federation, the examination is extremely strict about the issue of the technical result. Data processing algorithms or business logic should be explicitly tied to the hardware implementation and demonstrate a measurable positive effect (acceleration of processes, reduction of load, saving resources, strengthening of security, etc.). 

In Kazakhstan, under similar circumstances, the examination more often accepts the applicant’s arguments about the presence of a technical nature of the solution, especially in applications for control systems, IoT devices and software and hardware systems. 

For IT developments, Kazakhstan is a more favorable jurisdiction for obtaining a patent with a relatively broad formula, while in the Russian Federation a deep technical study of the application is required with detailed flowcharts and the relationship between the hardware and the algorithm. 

Let us consider compulsory licensing and the use of patents. In the Russian Federation, the institution of compulsory licensing is developed and actively used, especially in the pharmaceutical sector and in cases related to public interests. 

According to the Association of International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, as of November 2025, about 48 patent disputes between pharmaceutical companies were considered in Russian courts, excluding the courts of the constituent entities of Russia, of which 21 lawsuits are related to the requirement to issue compulsory licenses. In Kazakhstan, similar norms exist, but the practical application is of a single nature. 

For pharmaceutical companies, a patent of the Russian Federation is associated with a higher regulatory risk, but at the same time provides effective mechanisms for protection and judicial suppression of violations. 

Finally, in the Russian Federation, a developed system of administrative and judicial challenges to patents has developed (the Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent, the Court for Intellectual Property Rights). In Kazakhstan, challenges are carried out mainly in court, the practice is less extensive and less formalized. 

A patent of the Russian Federation provides stronger protection in disputes, but also becomes an object of attack more often; in Kazakhstan, the risk of annulment is lower, but judicial protection is less “worked out.” 

Despite the formal similarity of the patent systems of the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, their practical application differs significantly. 

Kazakhstan is generally oriented towards a more flexible and “applicant-friendly” model, while the Russian Federation offers a strict but stable system of patent protection with developed law enforcement. 

The optimal strategy for applicants is a combined approach to patenting: the use of Kazakhstan for the initial fixation of a technical solution, the establishment of a priority date, and the Russian Federation for obtaining a patent with a high degree of legal protection and commercial significance.