Download now: LIFE SCIENCES WHITEPAPER - BUILDING AN INVESTABLE IP PORTFOLIO
​

Legal opinion now available on the UK’s continuing participation in the UPC post-Brexit

No items found.
​
September 16, 2016
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

The IP Federation, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Lawyers Association have obtained the opinion of leading counsel (Richard Gordon Q.C. and Tom Pascoe, both of Brick Court Chambers) on the UK’s ability to continue to participate in the UPC post leaving the European Union. As a contributor to the costs of obtaining of this opinion and through its membership of the IPLA, EIP have obtained a copy and it is available to download here .

Contrary to some earlier views based on the CJEU’s Opinion 1/09, the opinion leaves the door open to continuing participation. This is a particularly important question to have answered as calls for the UK to ratify the UPC grow across Europe. We therefore consider this to be a particularly important document for the IP community (and indeed government) to consider.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
​
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
​
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​