I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays!

Today’s interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved.

But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you!

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline.

US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts.

A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state.

A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit.

In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications.

Now let’s jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann:

The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape.

This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy.

How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC”

Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe.

He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023.

What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement.

UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China

In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact.

From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer.

From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling.

China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue.

The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles.

Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann’s view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court’s caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years.

A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo

A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons.

First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go.

Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC.

Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability.

For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux

Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia).

Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions.

In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case.

This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous.

For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold.

Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law?

A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO’s Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity.

On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material.

On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann’s conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC’s approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form.

The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO’s standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test.

For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same.

Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles

Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed.

On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures.

Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track.

There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests.

The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch.

Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing.

A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes

UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely.

One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system.

Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed.

This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues.

Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant’s Perspective

The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections.

From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good.

Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy.

This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant’s product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice.

The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare

Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term.

Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies.

For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously.

Conclusion

The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO’s case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions.

For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk.

Here is the full transcript of the interview:

Rolf Claessen:
Today’s interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today’s interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016.

He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me.

Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys.

Aloys Hüttermann:
Thank you for inviting me, it’s an honour.

How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC?

Rolf Claessen:
Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court?

Aloys Hüttermann:
This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious.

I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit.

It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it.

UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact

Rolf Claessen:
Before we go deeper into the UPC, let’s zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand?

Aloys Hüttermann:
If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies.

One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail.

On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely.

China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year.

On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision.

The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US.

The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time.

When is the UPC the most powerful tool?

Rolf Claessen:
Let’s take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground?

Aloys Hüttermann:
To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good.

The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool.

Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on.

But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years.

A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent)

Rolf Claessen:
You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare?

Aloys Hüttermann:
The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC’s annual report.

It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief.

Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient.

Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC’s approach is very close to the EPO’s problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough.

For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues.

We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case.

In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up.

The CJEU’s Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer

Rolf Claessen:
You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation.

Aloys Hüttermann:
Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet.

One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be.

Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact.

Rolf Claessen:
For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right?

Aloys Hüttermann:
Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France.

The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents.

In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions.

We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision.

This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case.

Rolf Claessen:
Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough?

Aloys Hüttermann:
That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group’s headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it.

Does the UPC follow EPO case law?

Rolf Claessen:
Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions?

Aloys Hüttermann:
On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO.

If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar.

For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach.

If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC.

There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO.

So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out.

Rolf Claessen:
We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher.

Aloys Hüttermann:
Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO.

You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?”

Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same.

Rolf Claessen:
So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity?

Aloys Hüttermann:
No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done.

Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences

Rolf Claessen:
If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings?

Aloys Hüttermann:
If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice.

For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine.

Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant.

At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division.

Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests.

Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent.

Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why.

The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves.

On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball.

Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes

Rolf Claessen:
If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed?

Aloys Hüttermann:
You know you do not really want me to answer that question…

Rolf Claessen:
I do!

Aloys Hüttermann:
All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem.

Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties’ behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC.

So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential.

If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail.

Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict.

We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack.

On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure.

Rolf Claessen:
I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard.

Aloys Hüttermann:
Yes, that is true.

Protective letters, inspections and the defendant’s perspective

Rolf Claessen:
Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China?

Aloys Hüttermann:
Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger.

In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well.

Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company’s perspective.

On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire.

If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later.

One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end.

From the defendant’s perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests.

And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims?

You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant’s product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides.

How to contact Prof. Hüttermann

Rolf Claessen:
Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time.

What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you?

Aloys Hüttermann:
The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me.

As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step.

Rolf Claessen:
Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys.

Aloys Hüttermann:
Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working.

Rolf Claessen:
I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Perfecter of our Faith (Hebrews 12:1–2)

Pray the Word with David Platt

Fixing Our Eyes on Jesus' Love

The AI-powered Podcast Player