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

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

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article