A prominent position is articulated in the open letter by Bardehle Pagenberg, which argues that uneven case distribution is neither surprising nor problematic. According to this view, concentration is a market‑driven outcome reflecting litigants’ preferences for experienced courts and predictable procedures—patterns that already existed in pre‑UPC national litigation. Regulatory intervention, the authors warn, risks undermining party autonomy and the system’s early success.

Other stakeholders adopt a more cautious stance. The UPC Advisory Committee has explicitly invited observer organisations to analyse the reasons for the imbalance and to consider whether measures encouraging a broader geographic spread may be warranted. EPLAW has clarified that it has not endorsed any corrective measures but is merely collecting member input for the Advisory Committee’s deliberations.

Academic and policy commentary highlights a deeper concern: sustained concentration in historically dominant venues may shape procedural expectations and litigation culture in ways that gradually narrow effective choice, even without formal constraints. From this perspective, the debate is less about caseload management than about the long‑term legitimacy of a “truly European” patent judiciary.

More comprehensive reviews of the discussion can be found on ipfray, Juve patent, and the Kluwer Patent Blog.

Der Beitrag Uneven Distribution of UPC Cases erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Completion of the transition from the old CMS (which is still needed for most UPC CMS functions at the time of phase 1 of the new CMS roll-out ) might be a blow to companies that offer dedicated authentication and signature card solutions tailored for the old CMS.

Der Beitrag New UPC CMS erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

First, as highlighted by one of the presenters (who reported on his first-hand experience when filing a request for file inspection with the Nordic-Baltic RD), the jurisprudence of the divisions appears to be influenced by the judge’s national legal background. This might be one of the reasons as to why the first file inspection request with the Nordic-Baltic RD was more successful than the two concurrently pending file inspection requests that were filed by others with the CD Munich.

Second, the CMS appears to be structured such that it cannot cope with some procedural situations. With regard to file inspections, CMS did not appear to work properly for patentee’s appeal against the RD’s decision to grant access to (a redacted version of) the pleadings.

As always, I can only recommend listening to this episode of INSIGHT epi.

Der Beitrag UPC updates erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

The ranking of December 2024 has revealed a surprising trend: some of the top patent law firms, renowned for their national prosecution and litigation work, are not to be found in the UPC ranking. This includes firms that have played a pro-active role in the preparation of the new system (such as BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT with Prof. Goddar) and firms that are ranked in the top tier for national litigation (such as df-mp).

Der Beitrag First UPC litigation ranking by JUVE Patent erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Der Beitrag epi podcast on UPC case law erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

The Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) is one of the co-defendants.

The matter is pending under the official case number ACT_16267/2024.

Der Beitrag Soccer-related UPC proceedings erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

This appears to be the first infringement action lodged with the CD.

By way of background, Art. 33(1) UPCA establishes two possible venues for bringing an infringement action against a defendant that has its principal place of business outside the territory of the Contracting Member States: The infringement action against such a defendenat can be brought, at claimant’s choice, before (i) the local division or the regisional division of a state where the alleged infringement has occurred, or (ii) the CD. Thus, for defendants for which there is no venue in accordance with Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, Art. 33(1) UPCA establishes an alternative venue (the CD) before which the action can be brought.

Der Beitrag UPC infringement action before CD erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

In an article published on LinkedIn, a fellow German patent attorney remarked that he considers the first headnote of this decision to represent a significant change as compared to the national German claim construction practice. I don’t think that the decision of the LD Munich is a significant departure from German national practice. While German courts have traditionally not relied on file history estoppel, several decisions handed down by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in recent years – such as BGH decision of 14/06/2016 – X ZR 29/15 – Pemetrexed and BGH decision of 10/05/2011 – X ZR 16/09 – Okklusionsvorrichtung (“occlusion device”) – held that claim amendments made during prosecution can be a useful tool for claim construction. The decision by the LD Munich appears to be in line with this German national case law (which in itself represents a shift towards the national practice of other EPC contracting states that apply the principles of file history estoppel).

Der Beitrag Claim construction at the UPC erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Der Beitrag UPC trends erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

This rationale is interesting in consideration of the fact that (i) in many other jurisdictions, it is only the date that matters (and some Courts, such as the German Federal Patent Court, do not appear to be set up for determining at which time of day an action is received when filed in paper form); (ii) may stakeholders are inclined to adopt a “first to act” strategy (in particular if they believe a local division to be more patentee-friendly than the central division, as also discussed in Hoffmann Eitle’s webinar today), with the time of day being potentially decisive for who was first to act; and (iii) the “smallest unit of time” for determining which event happened first (time of day or date only) can be relevant for scenarios other than infringement / revocation actions, such as determining whether an opt out or UPC revocation was effective earlier (relevant for the admissibility of a UPC revocation action).

Der Beitrag UPC time considerations erschien zuerst auf meier ip.