• Login
    • Advanced search
    • Title
    • Channel
    • Module
  • Home
  • Industry
    •  

      • Aerospace, Defense, and Government Services
      • Automotive
      • Consumer
      • Manufacturing and Industrials
      • Education
      • Energy and Natural Resources
      • Financial Institutions
    •  

      • Insurance
      • Life Sciences and Health Care
      • Private Capital
      • Real Estate
      • Sports, Media and Entertainment
      • Technology and Telecoms
      • Transport and Logistics
  • Practice
    • Corporate & Finance

      • Banking and Loan Finance
      • Business Restructuring and Insolvency
      • Capital Markets
      • Corporate Governance and Public Company Representation
      • Digital Assets and Blockchain
      • Infrastructure, Energy, Resources, and Projects
      • Leveraged and Acquisition Finance
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Pensions
      • Private Equity, Venture Capital and Investment Funds
      • Real Estate
      • Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
      • Tax
      • Transfer Pricing
    • Global Regulatory

      • Administrative and Public Law
      • Antitrust and Competition
      • Communications, Internet, and Media
      • Education
      • Energy Regulatory
      • Environment and Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Food Law
      • Gaming Law
      • Government Contracts and Public Procurement
      • Government Relations and Public Affairs
      • Health
      • Immigration
      • International Trade and Investment
      • Medical Device and Technology Regulatory
      • New Nuclear
      • Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Regulatory
      • Privacy and Cybersecurity
      • Space and Satellite
      • Strategic Operations, Agreements and Regulation
      • Transportation Regulatory
    • Intellectual Property

      • Copyright
      • Designs
      • Domain Names
      • IP and Technology Transactions
      • IP Enforcement
      • Patents
      • Trade Secrets and Confidential Know-how
      • Trademarks and Brands
      • Unfair Competition
    • Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment

      • Business and Human Rights
      • Construction and Engineering
      • Corporate and Securities Litigation
      • Employment
      • International Arbitration
      • Investigations, White Collar, and Fraud
      • Products Law
      • Risks, Disputes, and Litigation
  • Comparative guides
  • Engage Premium
  • Login
  • Register
Hogan Lovells Engage 5.7.7
      • Title
      • Channel
      • Module
    • Hit ENTER to search in content
    • Advanced search
    • Login
  • Home
  • Industry
    •  

      • Aerospace, Defense, and Government Services
      • Automotive
      • Consumer
      • Manufacturing and Industrials
      • Education
      • Energy and Natural Resources
      • Financial Institutions
    •  

      • Insurance
      • Life Sciences and Health Care
      • Private Capital
      • Real Estate
      • Sports, Media and Entertainment
      • Technology and Telecoms
      • Transport and Logistics
  • Practice
    • Corporate & Finance

      • Banking and Loan Finance
      • Business Restructuring and Insolvency
      • Capital Markets
      • Corporate Governance and Public Company Representation
      • Digital Assets and Blockchain
      • Infrastructure, Energy, Resources, and Projects
      • Leveraged and Acquisition Finance
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Pensions
      • Private Equity, Venture Capital and Investment Funds
      • Real Estate
      • Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
      • Tax
      • Transfer Pricing
    • Global Regulatory

      • Administrative and Public Law
      • Antitrust and Competition
      • Communications, Internet, and Media
      • Education
      • Energy Regulatory
      • Environment and Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Food Law
      • Gaming Law
      • Government Contracts and Public Procurement
      • Government Relations and Public Affairs
      • Health
      • Immigration
      • International Trade and Investment
      • Medical Device and Technology Regulatory
      • New Nuclear
      • Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Regulatory
      • Privacy and Cybersecurity
      • Space and Satellite
      • Strategic Operations, Agreements and Regulation
      • Transportation Regulatory
    • Intellectual Property

      • Copyright
      • Designs
      • Domain Names
      • IP and Technology Transactions
      • IP Enforcement
      • Patents
      • Trade Secrets and Confidential Know-how
      • Trademarks and Brands
      • Unfair Competition
    • Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment

      • Business and Human Rights
      • Construction and Engineering
      • Corporate and Securities Litigation
      • Employment
      • International Arbitration
      • Investigations, White Collar, and Fraud
      • Products Law
      • Risks, Disputes, and Litigation
  • Comparative guides
  • Engage Premium
  • Login
  • Register
  1. News
  2. Three reasons why you might consider not to opt-out your patents from the UPC system

Three reasons why you might consider not to opt-out your patents from the UPC system

16 November 2022
    • Share by email
    • Share on
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Get link
    • Get QR Code
    • Download
    • Print

We recently discussed under which circumstances it might be advisable to declare an opt-out for existing European patents. However, there may be also good reasons not to declare an opt-out for your existing European patents.

1. Patent is strong

One of the main reasons to opt-out from the UPC system is that a European patent with all its national parts may be invalidated by one single (counter-) claim for revocation. However, this threat is significantly reduced if a European patent has already survived validity challenges in opposition proceedings or in revocation proceedings before the national courts. If a European patent has been maintained in opposition proceedings before the EPO or before the national courts, it is not a given that these decisions will be overruled by the UPC.  So, if a European patent has already proven its validity in EPO opposition proceedings and/or national revocation proceedings, there are good reasons to keep the option to use the UPC for the enforcement of the patent.

2. Patent is validated and/or likely infringed in several participating UPC member states

The key benefit of the UPC is the opportunity to enforce a European patent in all participating EU member states, in which the patent has been validated, in one single infringement proceeding. The single infringement procedure covering multiple countries is beneficial in cases where the patent is infringed in multiple countries by the same product, or if the different steps of a process patent take place in several different countries, or if the components of a complex machine are produced in several different countries. In such cases the patentee can enforce its patent against the infringer(s) in one procedure, avoids diverging decisions and reduces the effort to coordinate multiple parallel proceedings in several countries. On top, it may even be less expensive than running infringement proceedings (and counterclaims for revocation) in multiple countries. To sum up, if a European patent is validated and will likely be infringed in several (in particular 4 or more) countries, this is a candidate to stay in the UPC system.

3. Competitor is based in country with slow court proceedings

The UPC also gives the option to enforce European patents in countries where the courts are relatively slow or less experienced in patent infringement proceedings. The territory of the UPC also covers countries with very few reported patent infringement cases, where the national courts have little experience in patent matters and where for this reason the result of proceedings seems less predictable, such as Bulgaria, Slovenia, Portugal or the Baltic states. Also, the UPC systems aims to provide a directly enforceable first instance judgment within around one year. This is significantly faster than the national courts in a number of the participating UPC member states. Therefore, if your competitors act in countries with less experienced national courts or with slow court proceedings and your European patent is validated in these countries, you should consider staying in the UPC system, at least with a couple of your European Patents.

Authored by Anna-Katharina Friese-Okoro and Christian Stoll.

Contacts
Anna-Katharina Friese-Okoro
Partner
Hamburg
Christian Stoll
Partner
Hamburg
Related Materials
3boatsIPMT

Three reasons why you might consider to opt-out your patents from the UPC system

Additional Resources
  • UPC and Unitary Patent Topic Center
Keywords UPC, unitary patent, Unified Patent Court, opt-out, UPC taskforce
Languages English
Topics UPC taskforce, Patents, IP Enforcement
Countries Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom
Delete Comment ?

Are you sure want to delete comment ?

Get link
Embed
Share by email
Get QR Code

Scan this QR Code to share this content

  • Contact us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Terms of Use

 

This website is operated by Hogan Lovells International LLP, whose registered office is at Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London, EC1A 2FG. For further details of Hogan Lovells International LLP and the international legal practice that comprises Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses ("Hogan Lovells"), please see our Legal Notices page. © 2022 Hogan Lovells.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Thomson Reuters HighQ Logo
© 2023 Hogan Lovells | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service