Formed just over three years ago, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has come a long way since then. In particular, the court’s focus on delivering quick resolutions and front-loading court processes is acknowledged by patent holders worldwide, especially those seeking to leverage their rights in the UK and the EU. So, what is the UPC getting right, and is it ready to do more?
In the first half of this year, 268 cases were filed at the Court of First Instance, a sharp increase on the same period in 2025. This reflects growing confidence in the UPC system, which already has a reputation for being claimant-friendly, and the organisation’s commitment to further strengthening its role. The UPC’s inaugural annual report, published earlier this year, highlights the launch of a new case management system and the hiring of more technically qualified judges to handle a growing caseload.
The UPC has already demonstrated its functionality and reliability. Backed by a team of skilled and experienced judges and robust rules of procedure, the court is increasingly realising its aim to resolve cases in 12 months or less. Guidance provided to parties pursuing cases through the UPC system encourages them to present detailed arguments from the outset. This, combined with clear guidance on how to proceed with infringement and revocation actions, makes the UPC a powerful resource for patent holders.
The UPC has developed a reputation for ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ when adjudicating cross-border patent disputes and enforcing injunctions. Essentially, this means patent holders can use the UPC system to enforce their rights in countries such as Spain and the UK (even though these countries are not covered by the UPC agreement), although obviously these extended powers of jurisdiction benefit patent holders looking to enforce their rights over those defending infringement or revocation actions.
Other key benefits of the UPC system relate to litigation costs and expediency. The costs associated with bringing a pan-European enforcement action through the UPC system, rather than via a country-by-country approach, are reasonable. Cases are resolved within 12 to 14 months on average, much quicker than would be possible using most other channels, potentially securing the patent holder a pan-European injunction.
Now, with UPC case numbers rising sharply and confidence growing in the quality and consistency of court judgments, regardless of where they are in the world innovation-led businesses should be making unitary patents part of their IP strategy. Having unitary patents in place, even if ‘opted out’ initially, could give them more options when it comes to exercising their rights in Europe.
With UPC case law evolving rapidly, we are beginning to get a clear picture of how the court is performing. There is a strong focus on adhering to timelines and keeping court processes on track. Time extension requests are rarely granted and the front-loaded case management procedures help to mitigate the risk of delays. Unlike many national court processes in countries such as Germany and the UK, it is rarely possible to postpone or halt proceedings at the UPC by requiring expert statements or validating questions. Written procedures are similar to those that apply in national courts, but at the UPC, these are filed as a prelude to the court process rather than a finale.
Assuming the current transitional period ends in 2030 as planned, the UPC will become the single jurisdiction for resolving patent disputes in Europe. At this point, unitary patent holders that are currently ‘opted out’ may choose to opt back in. However, it is possible that the transitional period will be extended another seven years, in which case patent holders might prefer to continue using the UPC’s centralised system on a case-by-case basis.
Growing confidence in UPC decisions is evident in case data. The number of unitary patent holders choosing to remain opted in has increased significantly, and this trend is likely to continue. For patent holders, IP strategies should be kept under review, particularly when it comes to securing protection in the wider European market. For example, they should consider whether there are critical and non-critical segments and make opt-in or opt-out decisions accordingly. Large pharmaceutical companies, for instance, often prefer to adopt a layered approach to patent protection, comprising both unitary and national patents. In terms of IP strategies, innovation-led businesses should take a segmented approach when considering how to structure their patent portfolios.
Finally, with UPC judges demonstrating their ability to make legally focused judgments involving matters such as ‘inventiveness’ and ‘sufficiency’, there could be scope for greater harmonisation as they scale their activities. Currently, patent holders typically opt for a dual-track system, bringing parallel infringement or revocation actions at the European Patent Office and the UPC, as there can be tactical advantages. Greater confidence in the legal proficiency of UPC judgments could pave the way to a more streamlined approach to patent strategies in the future.
Ernst-Ulrich Wittman is a partner and patent strategist at European IP firm Withers & Rogers, Munich
No comments yet