The UPC, three years on…

Assessment and challenges of a court that has changed the rules of the game

Three years after it came into operation, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has established itself as an essential player in patent litigation in Europe. While it has not caused national courts to disappear, it has become the strategic solution of reference for many players. Overall, the assessment is in line with the initial promises. But beyond the figures, the UPC has above all transformed the very logic of patent litigation in Europe, and this change appears to be irreversible.

1. An assessment in line with the founding promises

The initial appeal of the UPC rested on three strong promises: speed, uniform application of the law in Europe and broad territorial reach of decisions. On all three points, the assessment is positive.

Speed. The average duration between service of the statement of claim and the first-instance decision in infringement matters is around one year — an average of 398 days for decisions handed down in 2025. The procedure imposes a tight timetable and limits delaying tactics.

Uniformity of law. A coherent body of case law is beginning to take shape on key issues: the granting of preliminary injunctions, assessment of inventive step, evaluation of infringement by equivalence, etc.

Broad territorial reach. The application of recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has opened the way to extended jurisdiction, covering not only the States that are signatories to the UPC Agreement, but also EU Member States that are not parties, such as Spain, or third countries, such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

2. Practical lessons for companies

The speed of the UPC is not a slogan, and it requires companies to anticipate not only their actions as claimants but also their positions in defence.

2.1 Litigation risk must be taken seriously

Many imagined that the UPC would eventually reproduce the delays of national courts. Practice shows the opposite. The procedural timetable is genuinely aggressive: substantial front-loading, short deadlines and hearings scheduled rapidly.

Cases must be ready even before the action is brought: the first written submissions are often decisive.

This constraint applies both in attack and in defence. When a litigation risk is detected, it is now crucial to anticipate:

• the identification of prior art documents and grounds for invalidity of the opposing patent;
• possible technical workaround solutions;
• one’s own patents that may be asserted or used as leverage in cross-negotiations.

This paradigm shift is already visible in the statistics: the number of protective letters filed before the UPC increased by 32% between 2024 and 2025, with 296 and 392 filings respectively. Companies are now integrating the UPC into their proactive management of litigation risk.

2.2 Provisional measures: the pan-European weapon becomes reality

Provisional measures were one of the founding promises of the UPC. Three years of practice confirm that this promise has been kept, provided that the relevant rules and practices are properly mastered.

The first decisions have made it possible to identify a framework of analysis that is now readable. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the claimant must convince the Court on three grounds: the likelihood of infringement, or fumus boni juris, the risk of harm that would be difficult to repair, and the balance of convenience between the parties. This framework, resulting in particular from a synthesis of the German and Dutch legal traditions, now offers genuine predictability, which is in itself a major step forward compared with the fragmented national litigation landscape before 2023.

Time is a structuring factor in the strategy. A swift reaction after the detection of infringement significantly strengthens the chances of obtaining the measure. This requires active market monitoring and the ability to mobilise the case without delay.

Companies that have integrated this constraint into the management of their patent portfolios derive a real competitive advantage from it. A provisional measure before the UPC is not a reflex; it is an offensive strategy, built upstream and triggered at the chosen moment.

When the conditions are met, the effect is unparalleled in Europe: a single decision, several markets blocked simultaneously, and immediate pressure on the infringer.

Several proceedings have demonstrated that this leverage effect significantly accelerates negotiations and can lead to swift amicable resolutions.

3. The decisive issues for the coming years

For a court as recent as the UPC, the diversity of the cases handled and the multiplicity of its local, regional and central divisions do not yet allow, after only three years of existence, sufficient hindsight. The coming years will be decisive in fully assessing its success.

3.1 Will the UPC be able to forge an autonomous judicial culture?

The question is not insignificant. Although the UPC has its own procedural corpus, its judges come from different national legal traditions, including French, German and Dutch traditions. National law reflexes may appear, whether in the way the scope of claims is assessed, damages are evaluated, or urgency criteria for provisional measures are applied.

The construction of a genuinely autonomous doctrine of the UPC — homogeneous and predictable — will be one of the major challenges of the coming years.

3.2 Opt-out: from an administrative formality to a litigation decision

The number of opt-outs remained broadly stable in 2024 and 2025, with 43,223 and 45,254 applications recorded respectively, and a slight increase in the last quarter of 2025. This relative stability reflects growing confidence among right holders in the centralised system.

But opt-out is no longer a precautionary administrative formality, as it was when the UPC was launched. It is a litigation decision in its own right, which must be weighed by taking into account the profile of the patent, its commercial value, its robustness in the face of revocation, and the competitive context of the sector. This derogatory measure, which is not intended to last beyond 2037, will already have to be assessed in the very near future in order to decide whether or not it should be renewed beyond 2030.

3.3 The place of national courts and the role of practitioners

National courts have not disappeared. They continue to play a role for certain types of disputes, particularly where a rapid national decision has a tactical advantage or where patents not covered by the UPC Agreement are involved.

In this reconfigured landscape, the role of patent attorneys and specialist lawyers has been strengthened: monitoring competitors’ patent portfolios, freedom-to-operate studies, anticipation of litigation risks and strategic management of disputes, both in attack and in defence.

One of the challenges of the coming years will therefore be to strike a balance between the centralisation offered by the UPC and the maintenance of effective complementarity with national courts, in order to guarantee economic operators a dispute resolution system adapted to the diversity of their needs.

Summary and outlook

Three years after its launch, the UPC has ceased to be an institutional project. It has become a genuine terrain for litigation strategy. Through a single action, it is now possible to block several markets, put pressure on an entire group and accelerate negotiations with worldwide implications.

The six-year assessment will be decisive. But the current dynamic is clear: the UPC is becoming the centre of gravity of patent litigation in Europe.

The opening of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) in May 2026 extends this dynamic. Institutionally attached to the UPC, the PMAC offers what no other international arbitration centre can provide: a direct gateway between judicial litigation and amicable resolution, with enforceable decisions in all Member States. At any stage of the procedure after the filing of the statement of claim, at the initiative of the judge-rapporteur, or in the window preceding the hearing, the parties may move to mediation without losing the benefit of the proceedings already initiated.

For disputes with a global dimension, arbitration offers even broader coverage, with the award capable of being confirmed as a UPC decision for Europe or enforced as an international arbitral award for the rest of the world.

The UPC is therefore no longer merely a court; it is becoming the pivot of a complete ecosystem for the resolution of patent disputes in Europe, and potentially worldwide.