< Back to latest news & events

Articles

UPC could open its doors in 2022

January 2022

With news that the Austrian parliament has ratified the Protocol on the provisional application of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on 2 December 2021, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) opening in 2022 is becoming more likely. This will be a significant change to the patent litigation landscape in Europe and will harmonise patent litigation across up to 24 EU Member States (MS). It will also mean that patentees can choose to validate a Unitary Patent (UP) that will cover all EU MS who have ratified the UPC Agreement (R-MS).

When Austria deposits its ratification of the Protocol this will trigger the provisional phase of the UPC. During the provisional phase, secondary legislation will be finalised, budgets set and Judges appointed before the UPC opens its doors. It is estimated that the provisional phase will take 8-10 months, following which Germany will deposit its ratification of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) triggering the launch of the UPC four months later. Based on current ratifications of the UPCA, on launch the UPC and UP will cover 17 EU MS, including Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands.

The launch of the UPC will not alter the prosecution or opposition of EPs but at grant there will now be the opportunity to validate a new UP designation. Validating a UP will create a designation with unitary effect across all R-MS, which will sit alongside other national patents validated from the EP. The request for a UP must be made within one month of the date of grant and we expect that the EPO will offer a three-month Sunrise Period for validation of a UP before the UPC launch. The EP(UP) is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC and cannot be opted-out.

The UPC is an entirely new common patents court for the litigation of EP(UPs) and any EP validated in R-MS that have not been opted-out. The UPC’s will have jurisdiction over (i) infringement and related defences and licences; (ii) declarations of non-infringement; (iii) protective measures and injunctions; (iv) damages; (v) revocation and counterclaims for revocation; and (vi) compensation for licences of right. With the geographical reach of the UPC, pan-UPC injunctions could be extremely powerful tools for patentees. Equally, a patent under its jurisdiction can be revoked in a single action. This could be particularly attractive to a potential defendant who has missed the EPO opposition period.

The UPC will be located in local and regional courts located across the R-MS. The Central Division will be located in Paris and Munich, with the Registry and Court of Appeal located in Luxembourg. Arbitration will also be available.

As this is such a significant change to the patent litigation system, there is a transitional period of at least 7 years where future or granted EPs can be “opted-out” of the jurisdiction of the UPC. The decision as to whether or not to opt-out of the UPC system should be considered now to take advantage of the expected three-month Sunrise Period ahead of launch of the UPC. To avoid litigation in the UPC, opt-outs must be entered in the Opt-Out Register by the patent proprietor. This is not simply just looking at the proprietor listed on the register. To ensure the application to opt-out is made validly, patentees will need to consider who is entitled to be the patent proprietor. Where a patent has been assigned or licensed or is co-owned, it will be necessary to analyse who the correct decision-maker(s) is/are. The Register will be searchable and maintained by the UPC Registry. Provided that no national litigation has been initiated, the opt-out can be withdrawn at a later date.

After decades of discussion and stalled schemes for a pan-EU patent and patent litigation system, it appears that we are on the cusp of the UPC system opening its doors. This is a significant opportunity for patentees to take advantage of a wide-reaching patent right and new patents court. The next few years will be one of transition and change as litigants engage with the UPC’s rules and procedures to develop the case law of the UPC alongside the national patents courts.

 

This article was prepared by HGF’s Partner & Head of Law Rachel Fetches.

Latest updates

A New Era for AI Patents in the UK: Supreme Court Aligns with the EPO

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) vs Comptroller General of Patents, a decision which serves to significantly change the way …

Read article
Event - 23rd - 25th March 2026

HGF are Gold Sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026

HGF are proud sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026, taking place from 23-25 March 2026 at the Pullman Paris Montparnasse. Bringing together patent pioneers, in-house leaders and private practice specialists, IPBC …

Event details
Event - 8th - 11th February 2026

AUTM Meeting 2026

We are attending the AUTM Annual Meeting from 8–11 February, a flagship event bringing together technology transfer professionals from across the globe. AUTM connects innovators, universities, and industry leaders to …

Event details

The Antibody Series #5 | Epitope-defined antibody claims: when “binds to this epitope” becomes a risk of insufficiency

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews decisions made at the EPO; here, they reviewed an appeal in opposition proceedings after the revocation …

Read article

The Deity Shoes case: a question of design activity and the constraints on a designer’s freedom

The footwear brand Deity Shoes sought to enforce their Community Design rights, both registered and unregistered, against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. However, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design found fault …

Read article

The Antibody Series #4 | pH points in antibody claims: when “same pH ” becomes an addition of matter

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions; in this case, they reviewed a revocation in opposition of a patent relating to …

Read article

The Antibody Series #3 | Antibody code names in claims: why “ACZ885” is not sufficient to define the antibody

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions. In this case, they examined a claim that identified an antibody by an internal …

Read article
Event - 3rd February 2026

HGF Brand & Design Conference 2026

Join us on 3rd February 2026 for HGF’s Brand & Design Conference, the must attend event for in-house legal teams, brand leaders, creatives, and innovators shaping the future of IP. …

Event details