Europe: UPC court fees announced

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

Europe: UPC court fees announced

At the end of February the Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court announced the definitive proposal for court fees for the UPC, which is planned to start in early 2017.

The most striking change with respect to the previous proposal is that the costs for registering an opt-out are set to zero. The argument of the Preparatory Committee for doing so was, next to the many requests from the profession, that registration and checking for payment would complicate the opt-out procedure. This procedure now is a simple filling of the required data in the automated registration system of the Court.

The other fees of the Court follow the original proposal, to the effect that filing cases for infringement or declaration for non-infringement involve a fixed fee of €11,000 and a value-based fee that can vary between €0 and €325,000. The value of the case should be calculated in the simplest way, for example by reference to an appropriate licence fee. Filing a revocation action only is subject to a fixed fee of €20,000.

There will be a 40% reduction for SMEs or micro-entities if they meet certain criteria. Court fees may be partially reimbursed for simpler procedures, such as when cases are heard by one judge, withdrawn or settled.

The value of the case also determines the ceiling of the recoverable costs, which may be awarded to the winning party.

For both the recoverable costs and the court fees there is leeway for the court to adjust the levels to the nature of the parties. If and how the cost structure favours non-practising entities (patent trolls) is difficult to predict. Possibly, they inadvertently profit from the arrangements that are applicable to SMEs.

More details and a full disclosure of the complete cost structure can be found on the website of the Preparatory Committee unified-patent-court.org.

Bart van Wezenbeek


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
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
Gift this article