Guide to the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

This guide was last updated on 01 June 2023.

The Unified Patent Court entered into force on 01 June 2023. Together with the European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent or UP) the UPC represents the biggest change in the European patent landscape in more than 40 years.

The UPC is a new, international court for patent litigation in Europe for states which are both members of the European Patent Convention and member states of the UPC Agreement. It is a single court, comprising both first and second instances, with multiple locations.

It is the product of years of discussions and negotiations that were aimed at the objective of providing a single litigation forum for patent disputes in Europe. To that end, it has procedures and rules that are based on a combination of different European practices.

The UPC is the court for litigating European patents, whether or not as unitary patents, with effect broadly for member states of the European Union. This therefore necessarily excludes significant non-EU states like Switzerland, Turkey and Norway. Furthermore, although Spain and Poland are member states of the EU, they have not signed up to the UPC Agreement.

The UK, which was an original signatory of the UPC Agreement and indeed ratified the UPC in December 2016, withdrew its ratification of the UPC Agreement and from the UP. This means the UK courts have exclusive jurisdiction over European patents designating the UK. Therefore, although there is a possibility of harmonisation for litigating patents across Europe with the UPC, at present European litigation remains somewhat fractured without unitary harmonisation.

This guide aims to set out the essential elements of the UPC system. We have published a separate guide to the unitary patent (see Guide to the unitary patent (UP)). In our view, while these two parts are inextricably linked, they are not co-extensive and confusion can arise between important aspects of each that are unrelated. We therefore recommend understanding each part separately before understanding the links between them.

Specific guidance

It is impossible in a guide of this nature to deal with every detail of the UPC Agreement, the Rules of Procedure and the fees and cost rules. If you are contemplating using the system, or finding yourself litigating before the UPC, we can provide you with specific and detailed advice relating to your particular circumstances. Nevertheless, we hope this guide provides a useful and helpful summary of the system, how it works and what the implications may be for you.

The UPC was established by the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the UPC Agreement) which was signed on 19 February 2013 by 25 European countries.

In July 2020, following Brexit, the UK withdrew from the UPC Agreement leaving the following 24 countries:

The UPC Agreement forms the bedrock of the legislation that governs the UPC. The UPC Agreement states that the UPC bases its decisions on:

1. EU law (including the two European Union Regulations creating the UP);
2. the UPC Agreement;
3. the European Patent Convention (EPC);
4. other international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the participating member states (such as The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS); and
5. national law.

The UPC Agreement is effective in all signatory countries that have ratified the UPC Agreement. References in this guide to “contracting member states” are therefore to countries that have both signed and ratified the UPC Agreement. Member states within this group will increase in number as more signatories ratify the Agreement.

In addition to governing law, there are several important sets of rules that apply in the UPC, including the Rules of Procedure and various Decisions of the UPC Administrative Committee

Actions within the competence of the UPC

The UPC has competence for infringement actions, declarations of non-infringement, revocation actions, and related counterclaims concerning patents that fall within its jurisdiction. This includes all forms of relief and protective and/or preventative measures. The UPC also has competence to deal with claims arising from decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) relating to its function as the granting and administrative body for UPs.

Regardless of the patent concerned, the UPC does not have competence for contractual disputes relating to patent licences or ownership – these remain the preserve of the national courts, and are governed by relevant national law.

Patents within the jurisdiction of the UPC

(a) European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent or UP)

UPs fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC, for disputes within its competence. All infringement and invalidity actions, and counterclaims, involving UPs must therefore be brought before the UPC.

(b) Conventional European patents

Conventional European patents validated in contracting member states (‘relevant conventional European patents’), also fall within the jurisdiction of the UPC, although the extent to which they do so will change over time and in particular will alter at the end of the transitional period.

During the transitional period, relevant conventional European patents can be litigated in either the UPC or national courts. It is also possible during this period to opt these patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC completely (see the ‘opt-out’ below). At the end of the transitional period, any relevant conventional European patents that have not been opted out will fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC.

Article 83 of the UPC Agreement provides that relevant conventional European patents can, before the end of the transitional period of the UPC, be opted out from the UPC’s jurisdiction. This may be desirable for holders of business-critical patents that they do not wish to place at risk of central revocation. Key aspects of the opt-out are:

1. The opt-out only applies to relevant conventional European patents – it has nothing to do with unitary patents which must be litigated in the UPC. So if you choose a UP, you automatically choose to litigate that patent in the UPC.
2. Any relevant conventional European patent can be opted out provided it has not already been litigated before the UPC.
3. Subject to any later opt-out withdrawal (see below), once opted out a relevant conventional European patent will be opted out of the UPC for its entire life – the opt-out itself will therefore last beyond the end of the transitional period.
4. Published European patent applications can also be opted out but any that become a UP after grant will automatically fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC.
5. The opt-out can be exercised up to the end of the transitional period (01 June 2030 at the earliest).
6. It is possible to withdraw an opt-out from the UPC but this can only be done once. It is not possible to opt back out again, and withdrawal of an opt-out will not be possible if the patent has been litigated before a national court.
7. All relevant conventional European patents in a ‘bundle’ must be opted out together: it is not possible to split up different national validations of relevant conventional European patents and take different decisions regarding the opt-out.
8. The opt-out can only be exercised by the true proprietor or applicant (see below). If there is more than one, all proprietors must agree. A declaration must be filed to confirm that the application is made by the person entitled to opt out, and on behalf of all relevant proprietors. If the declaration proves to be false or inaccurate, the opt-out will be invalid.
9. Licensees cannot opt out.
10. Where there are granted supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) in UPC states attached to a patent, the two rights must be opted out together. It is therefore not possible to opt out a granted SPC without the relevant patent, and vice versa.
11. The proprietorship rules therefore mean that where a granted SPC and the relevant patent are in different ownership, all owners must agree to opt out.
12. There is no official fee to opt out, or to withdraw the opt-out. Associated costs relate to administrative time and any professional costs involved in the provision of advice relating to the opt-out, and any opt-out service used.

Given the implications of any false or inaccurate declaration (see point 8 above), it is essential to check the proprietorship position in advance, and seek any consents that may be necessary. There will be an assumption that the proprietor or applicant on the relevant national or EPO registers is the entity or person entitled to opt out. It is the true proprietor or applicant who has the right to opt out, however, so this needs to be checked as it may not be the same person as entered on the register. It may be sensible to try to correct any registers that are out of date, subject to costs considerations. If the application to opt out is made in the wrong name, it will be ineffective. Corrections can be made but the opt-out will not be back dated, which could cause problems.

The UPC Agreement provides for the current transitional period during which the UPC shares jurisdiction with national courts for relevant conventional European patents.

The end of the transitional period also marks the end of the time during which applications to opt out can be made (in fact, they must be lodged no later than one month before the end of the transitional period).

Article 83 of the UPC Agreement provides that the transitional period will last for seven years from the commencement of the UPC. This means the transitional period will end on 01 June 2030.

However, the UPC Agreement also provides that there will be a consultation with users after five years of operation of the UPC, as a result of which the transitional period could be extended by up to a further seven years (so possibly up to 01 June 2037).

The UPC comprises first and second instance courts, together with a Registry and an Arbitration and Mediation Centre.

First Instance

The First Instance of the UPC is made up of Local, Regional and Central Divisions.

Local and Regional Divisions primarily have competence for infringement actions, with or without invalidity counterclaims. The Central Division primarily has competence for invalidity actions, with or without an infringement counterclaim. It also has competence for actions for a declaration of non-infringement.

Any contracting member state may host a Local Division. Many will do so and indeed some may be able to host more than one (for example, Germany). The number and locations of these may vary over time.

Some contracting member states have joined or may join together to host a Regional Division rather than have their own individual Local Divisions. These will function in essentially the same way as Local Divisions.

The Central Division has three branches, which were originally to be located in Paris; London; and Munich. The withdrawal of the UK has meant the branch located in London will have to be relocated or absorbed by the other two locations of Paris and Munich.

Second Instance – Court of Appeal

The UPC has a Court of Appeal, with a single location in Luxembourg.

Registry

The UPC has a central Registry, based in Paris, with sub-registries at each division. The Registry is responsible for the administration of all proceedings, including service of all documents (which should be filed at the Registry, not sent directly between the parties).

Mediation and Arbitration Centre

The UPC has a Mediation and Arbitration Centre, located in Lisbon and Ljubljana. This has its own rules and procedures. Parties have no duty to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) although they will be encouraged to do so, whether using the UPC Mediation and Arbitration Centre, or any other independent service located in a number of contracting member states.

Except where the parties have specifically agreed on a particular division for their case, the following sets out where various UPC actions should be brought.

Infringement actions

Actions for infringement should be brought before the Local or Regional Division in either:

• The contracting member state in which the infringement occurred; or
• The contracting member state where the defendant (or one of them, if multiple defendants) has its residence or principal place of business or, in the absence of either of these, its place of business.

An action for infringement can be brought in the Central Division where either:

• The defendant has its residence, principal place of business or, in the absence of either of these, its place of business outside the territory of the contracting member states; or
• The contracting member state concerned (for the purposes of (a) or (b) above) does not have a Local Division or participate in a Regional Division.

An action against multiple defendants can be brought only where the defendants have a commercial relationship and the case relates to the same infringement.

Counterclaims for revocation or a declaration of non-infringement must be brought before the same division as the infringement action to which they relate.

The jurisdiction rules provide the potential for choice of UPC division in many infringement cases, in particular where there may be multi-country infringement and/or multi-defendant litigation.

Revocation actions and actions for a declaration of non-infringement

The Central Division has jurisdiction for actions for revocation or for a declaration of non-infringement. Such actions should be brought before the relevant branch of the Central Division, based on technology.

Actions may be transferred or otherwise moved from one division to another, or brought in a division that is outside the principal rules, in a number of circumstances, including:

1. Where the parties agree that an action may be brought before the division of their choice.
2. Where a Local Division decides to transfer all or part of a case to the Central Division when a revocation counterclaim is brought in an infringement action.
3. Where the parties agree to transfer.
4. Where a revocation action is pending before the Central Division and an infringement claim is then brought before a Local or Regional Division (in which case, the defendant in that latter claim can choose to continue the action for revocation in the Central Division or commence a counterclaim in the Local or Regional Division).
5. Where an action for a declaration of non-infringement is pending before the Central Division and an infringement action is then brought before a Local or Regional Division (in which case the action for a declaration will be stayed).
6. Where more than one action is pending before different panels (whether in different divisions or not) concerning the same patent, the relevant panels of the UPC may agree that the two actions shall be heard together.

Local or Regional Divisions

The language of proceedings before the Local or Regional Divisions is:

1. one or other of the official languages of the contracting member state hosting the division, or the official language designated by the contracting member states sharing a Regional Division; or
2. to the extent designated by the relevant division, one or other of the official languages of the EPO (English, French or German).

Alternatively, in circumstances where the parties and panel agree, and/or where the panel of the relevant division believes it to be fair and convenient to do so taking into account the circumstances in particular of the defendant, the language of the patent may be used. This may be particularly important where defendants are sued in a division which uses an entirely unfamiliar language.

It is likely that English will be the actual or an optional language in the majority if not all divisions of the UPC. However, care should be taken when selecting a language and a division, having regard to the likely impact of using what may be a second or even third language of the participants, judges and representatives.

Central Division

The language of proceedings in the Central Division is the language of the patent.

Court of Appeal

The language of proceedings in the Court of Appeal is the language used in the First Instance Division from which the appeal comes, subject to alternative agreement by the parties in which case an alternative language may be used, including the language of the patent.

Parties must be represented before the UPC – there is no possibility for individuals to appear in person.

Any lawyer authorised to practice before a court of a contracting member state will be able to represent parties before the UPC.

In addition, parties may be represented by European patent attorneys who have appropriate qualifications. These include the European Patent Litigation Certificate, awarded specifically for the UPC, as well as a number of other qualifications that enable a significant number of existing European patent attorneys to qualify as representatives.

UK based European patent attorneys are able to act as representatives before the UPC, there being no nationality or residence requirement to act as a representative.

The UPC is something of a hybrid, incorporating patent office or patent tribunal practices and approaches that are not seen in national courts. The judicial panel at First Instance in particular is likely always to include a technical judge (who will be a senior European patent attorney or former patent office tribunal member). Further, most of the procedure and briefing will be in writing, and the statements of case will require a substantial amount of technical content.

The UPC is a court of law. The legal judges will always of course also be the majority, whichever division is hearing the case. The procedure, rules (including jurisdiction), evidence, and remedy approaches are all aspects that come from court processes, and differ significantly from EPO or other patent office procedures.

Bearing all of that in mind, the best approach in anything other than the simplest case is likely to be to arrange representation that comprises a mixture of European patent attorneys and lawyers experienced in patent litigation.

There are two kinds of judge in the UPC – legal and technical. Legal judges are individuals eligible to sit as judges in their national courts, and are typically experienced national judges. They have experience and/or training in patent litigation.

Technical judges have a technical degree and demonstrable expertise in a particular field. They are typically senior European patent attorneys or former members of patent office tribunals.

In all proceedings, a judge-rapporteur is appointed from among the legal judges on the relevant panel. The judge-rapporteur manages the case, particularly in the interim procedure (as explained in the ‘Overview of Proceedings’ section of this guide).

In the context of varying linguistic skills and backgrounds of the UPC judges, it is crucial to tailor submissions according to the nationalities of the judges on each panel and be mindful of the different approaches that may be required. This is particularly important in the early days of the UPC in divisions which have a majority of ‘local’ judges – there is likely to be an understandable element of ‘local flavour’ in proceedings in these divisions, at least to begin with.

Local and Regional Divisions

The Local and Regional Divisions generally sit in panels of three legally qualified judges. A technical judge may be added to the panel, and will be if invalidity is in issue. Most cases are therefore likely to have a technical judge.

Where there are panels of judges, they are international such that not all come from the same contracting member state (or, in the case of a Regional Division, not all come from the countries participating in that division). However, some Local Divisions may have a majority of ‘local’ judges – these are divisions in countries with a large average number of patent cases over a qualifying period. Thus the Local Divisions in at least Germany have a majority of local legal judges, as do probably a few others.

Central Division

The Central Division sits in a panel of two legal judges and one technical judge. The legal judges come from different contracting member states.

In any case at first instance (Local, Regional or Central Divisions), the parties can agree to have a case heard by a single judge.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal will sit in panels of five judges; three legal and two technical. The three legal judges will come from different contracting member states.

*Possibility for case to be heard by a single judge.

Substantive proceedings at First Instance

Substantive proceedings before the UPC comprise three stages: written, interim and oral procedures.

For a case at First Instance, an action is commenced by filing either a statement of claim or a statement for revocation, as appropriate. These must be quite detailed, and contain all the facts, evidence, argument and propositions of law relied upon. Claims and documents must be filed (electronically) at the Registry of the UPC, which is responsible for service on defendants (and generally on the parties throughout the course of an action).

A defendant has three months to file its defence (and possible counterclaim), which must be similarly detailed. After this, there is an opportunity for subsequent rounds of written pleadings by both parties. These steps comprise the written procedure.

Once the written procedure closes, the next stage is the interim procedure. During this stage, the judge-rapporteur makes a number of directions in order to prepare for the oral procedure (see below). This may include the parties attending an interim conference. This part of the action is to provide clarification on certain points, produce further evidence and consider the roles of experts and/or experiments. The interim procedure should be completed within three months of the end of the written procedure.

Once the interim procedure is completed, the action moves on to the oral procedure. The judge-rapporteur summons the parties to an oral hearing about two months after the close of the interim procedure. The UPC will endeavour to limit the duration of the oral hearing to one day although it could be longer in appropriate cases. The oral hearing includes the oral submissions of the parties together with the examination of any experts or witnesses, although there may be a separate witness hearing in addition.

The written judgment should be provided within six weeks of the hearing. It is also intended that first instance proceedings should be concluded within no more than about a year from commencement.

At any stage of the procedure, the UPC may propose that the parties liaise with the Mediation and Arbitration Centre (or any other appropriate alternative dispute resolution service or process) in order to explore the possibility of settlement. This is most likely to be recommended by the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure.

Interim proceedings

Parties may apply for interim orders and remedies at various stages of the case, or indeed before an action commences (for example, to obtain an asset freezing order or evidence preservation order). These proceedings typically follow a written and oral procedure, and in appropriate cases an oral hearing.

Appeal proceedings

Appeals may be brought against both procedural and substantive decisions of any First Instance division of the UPC. Procedural appeals may be frequent, and important, in the early days of the UPC in order that a harmonised procedure is encouraged in all Local and Regional Divisions. Appeals can also be brought against damages and costs decisions.

There are also three stages in appeal proceedings: written, interim and oral. They are broadly similar to those in first instance proceedings (with much shortened timescales for procedural appeals).

Damages proceedings

A successful claimant is entitled to commence an application to determine damages (and possibly seek an interim award of damages). Such an application, if contested by the unsuccessful defendant, follows a similar three stage approach to that in First Instance substantive proceedings but with such reduced timetable as the judge-rapporteur may order.

Proceedings for recovery of costs

A successful party may commence a proceeding for the recovery of costs by filing an application which includes the necessary particulars of costs incurred. If contested by the unsuccessful party, that party will have the opportunity to comment in writing on the costs requested. The judge-rapporteur will decide on the costs to be awarded, in writing.

A wide range of interim remedies are possible in the UPC, including:

1. Preservation and obtaining of evidence (by inspection procedures similar to saisie-contrefaçon or production of documents similar to limited discovery).
2. Interim injunctions.
3. Asset freezing orders.
4. Security for costs.

Following the substantive judgment, final remedies include:

1. Damages or an account of profits (which are determined in a separate proceeding following trial and appeal, if not agreed).
2. Interim award of damages pending full assessment.
3. Injunctions (which are discretionary but likely to be widely granted – note there are no eBay-type rules on injunctions in the UPC).
4. Destruction or delivery-up of infringing goods and/or materials or implements concerned.
5. Recall from channels of commerce.
6. Publication of judgment.
7. If the patent is revoked, an order for revocation.
8. Costs recovery (see 'UPC court fees and cost recovery' below).

The UPC court fees and cost recovery rules should be taken into account at the commencement of any action in the UPC, and when taking any further step in proceedings. The fees are relatively substantial and because a losing party may be liable for the costs of the successful party, the costs and fee risk should be borne in mind. The position in the UPC is different from that in a number of national courts.

Court fees

Court fees in the UPC are a mixture of fixed and value-based fees.

All actions and interim applications in the UPC attract a fixed fee. For substantive proceedings, these range from around €3,000 for a damages proceeding, to €20,000 for a revocation proceeding. For interim applications, fixed fees range from €350 for inspection or preservation applications, to €11,000 for an application for an interim injunction.

In addition, certain substantive proceedings attract value-based fees, where the value of the proceeding exceeds €500,000. These value-based fees range from €2500 for cases exceeding €500,000 but less than €750,000, up to €325,000 for cases exceeding €50m in value.

Proceedings that incur a value-based fee include:

1. Infringement actions.
2. Infringement counterclaims.
3. Actions for a declaration of non-infringement.
4. Applications to determine damages.

Revocation actions and counterclaims for revocation do not attract a value-based fee. A revocation counterclaim will attract the same fee as the infringement action in which it is filed, up to a cap of €20,000 (which is the fixed fee for a revocation action).

There are fee reductions of around 40% for small and micro entities, as well as further reimbursements where a single judge hears the case or where the case is settled or withdrawn early.

Legal costs and fee recovery

The UPC operates a basic ‘loser pays’ principle. Article 69 of the UPC Agreement provides that reasonable and proportionate costs and other expenses of the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party (unless fairness requires otherwise), up to certain limits.

The UPC Rules on Court Fees and Recoverable Costs provide for a scale of recoverable cost limits that apply to representation costs only (meaning legal representation). These limits are based on value and range from €38,000 for a case up to and including €250,000 in value, to €2m for cases exceeding €50m in value. These limits may be raised in exceptional cases, or lowered if an applicable cap may threaten the economic existence of a party.

Court fees should be recoverable in full, and third party costs (such as expert fees) are not capped, so are recoverable to the extent they have been necessarily and reasonably incurred.

Unreasonable or unnecessary costs are borne by the party which incurred them, regardless of outcome.

Opposition proceedings emain possible for conventional European patents and unitary patents. They can run in parallel with UPC proceedings.

Proceedings before the UPC are not stayed where there are opposition or limitation proceedings, save where a decision in the opposition or other proceedings is expected to be given rapidly. This is different from the position before some national courts, where a stay may be likely if there is an opposition pending.

Opposition may be a popular option because it is cheaper than proceedings in the UPC, and of course addresses conventional European patents validated in EPC states such as the UK, which is not a party to the UPC.

The UPC is therefore a further option for central invalidation proceedings, for the contracting member states, and one that is available throughout the life of the patent, not just the first nine months after grant.