Latest draft of Unified Patent Court rules released

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Latest draft of Unified Patent Court rules released

The group of patent judges and practitioners in charge of drawing up the rules of procedure for the Unified Patent Court has published its latest draft, together with a summary of the changes and the rationale for them

The Expert Group, chaired by Kevin Mooney, says that the 16th draft reflects the responses the group received to the latest round of consultations, which closed in October.

The Group has also published a summary of the changes it has proposed, explaining why its members rejected or accepted recommendations for each change.

The Legal Group of the Preparatory Committee, chaired by Germany’s Johannes Karcher, will now consider the draft set of rules at the level of participating EU member states. It plans to hold a hearing later this year on the suggested amendments to the text. The hearing is expected to be in September or October.

The publication of the latest draft comes a week after a group of technology companies wrote an open letter calling for additional “judicial guidance” on bifurcation and injunctions.

The 19 signatory companies and associations, many of whom operate in the electronics and computing sectors, are particularly concerned that troll-like patent owners could abuse the new UPC to block the sale of products based on dubious patents.

On this issue, the Expert Group notes that Intel claimed that Rule 211 of the earlier draft “provides too little guidance on how to exercise discretion to grant provisional relief” and is “concerned that different local and/or regional courts will adopt divergent approaches”.

In response, the Group says it has agreed to reword Rule 211.3 to incorporate text based on Article 62(2) to state “…the Court shall in the exercise of its discretion weigh up the interests of the parties and, in particular, take into account the potential harm for either of the parties resulting from the granting or the refusal of the injunction.”

The Group says it has also agreed that the Court should have regard to unreasonable delay when it comes to granting injunctions.

You can read more about the next steps for setting up the UPC, including the appointment of judges, here.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, ELTEMATE
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
Gift this article