14/09/2026
The UK Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) held its second annual UPC conference on 9 September 2026 discussing recent developments with the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) system. It is now more than three years since the UPC opened in June 2023. During this time, more than 1200 individual cases have been filed at the courts, and hundreds of court decisions have issued.
It was therefore particularly timely to hear, in person, the views of active UPC judges, Ronny Thomas, Dr. Elisabetta Papa, Samuel Granata, and Paolo Catallozzi, as well as leading practitioners from Europe and the UK who were moderating the discussions. Practitioners and Judges alike presented a range of views on questions of jurisdiction, Standard Essential Patents (SEP) / FRAND case issues, and case law developments for matters like determining the scope of protection of a claim, determining infringement, and handing evidence.
Discussions between practitioners included thoughts on how legal teams were organising themselves before the UPC courts and observations that the most effective teams typically involved both lawyers and European Patent Attorneys working together. The familiarity of an experienced team of lawyers with the Judges and civil procedures of the courts, for matters such as evidence and costs, combined with the technical expertise and additional analytical resources of European Patent Attorneys for handling complicated technical questions and the short deadlines of the UPC action, was essential.
There was considerable interest in the newly opened UPC Patent Mediation and Arbitration Center (PMAC) and the discussion led by its director Mr Aleš Zalar, and by Dr Maxence Rivoire of King’s College London. The PMAC is situated Ljubljana and Lisbon and provides parties to the UPC with a complementary alternative dispute resolution forum and with access to related expert determination services. The PMAC is available for matters arising on unitary, European and national patents, in cases where the UPC would also be competent court. The PMAC case Management system went live relatively recently (12 May 2026) and although the first cases have now been received, none as yet have been ruled upon. It was noted that UPC Judges are already recommending the PMAC to parties before their courts! A particular area of interest for the PMAC is its stated intention of offering expert determination proceedings, such as might be appropriate for supporting rate setting enquiries in SEP and FRAND matters.
Later in the day, there was a separate and equally interesting discussion of developments with Standard Essential Patents (SEP) and FRAND licensing matters at the UPC. Several decisions have been issued by the court involving parties like, Panasonic, Samsung, Oppo, Huawei, Nokia, Amazon, and Interdigital. Although civil law jurisdictions like those involved in the UPC jurisdiction do not typically do rate setting of the type offered by the UK courts, some UPC judges have expressed a willingness to determine FRAND license rates. However, these cases have largely settled to date, and as yet, there has been no need for the UPC to proceed as far as making a determination. The UK courts therefore still remain an attractive jurisdiction alongside the UPC for SEP related disputes.
No UPC seminar would be complete without a discussion of the jurisdictional extent of court, and its so-called Long Arm powers, following the case law developed in the BSH v Electrolux, decision of the CJEU (Court of Justice of the EU), the Fujifilm v Kodak decision of the UPC Court of Appeal, and more recently the Dyson v Dreame decision of the UPC Court of Appeal and its referral of questions to the CJEU to testing the reach of the long arm power. The Fujifilm v Kodak decision confirms that the UPC has jurisdiction over a patent dispute where the defendant is domiciled in the territory of the UPC, and confirms that the jurisdiction of the UPC is not limited to UPC territory only, but can include the territory of all Contracting Member States where the European Patent has effect. The decision also sets out a framework for handling questions of the validity of the European patent in dispute, noting that the national court has the final word on validity. It also goes without saying, that the enforceability of any UPC decision concerning infringement in the non-UPC state also requires cooperation of the local non-UPC court. The Dyson v Dreame referral to the CJEU seeks to clarify whether an EU based intermediary for a non-EU based alleged infringer can act as an anchor defendant to bring a non-EU based alleged infringer within the UPC’s jurisdiction in respect of infringement occurring in an EU Member State (Spain in this case) that is not party to the UPCA. Matters of jurisdiction been multiple nations, and multiple defendants, remain a complicated matter for the UPC!
In addition, there was an interesting discussion of how UPC approaches to determining questions of inventive step, claim scope, and infringement under the doctrine of equivalence might differ or agree with the EPO and national courts. On inventive step, the UPC now takes what is known as the holistic approach established in the Court of Appeal decision Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron. This differs in some respects from the technical problem and solution approach preferred by the EPO. On scope of infringement, the recent Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex decision of the Local Court in Dusseldorf endorsed the four-step approach to assessing infringement under “Doctrine of Equivalence” set out by the Hague Local Division in the 2024 Plant-e v Arkyne decision.
Overall, the UPC continues to demonstrate that it is a highly sophisticated forum providing quick and efficient resolution for European Patent disputes, and we are looking forward to discussing further developments with colleagues next year.
This content is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
