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.