Confirmed: UK to shun unitary patent and UPC

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Confirmed: UK to shun unitary patent and UPC

Europe viewed from space at night with city lights in European Union member states, global EU business and finance, satellite communication technology, 3D render of planet Earth, world map from NASA

The government says that UPC membership and CJEU oversight would be inconsistent with its objective of being a self-governing nation



The UK will not participate in the proposed Unified Patent Court and unitary patent system, a spokesperson for the prime minister has confirmed.

In a statement last night, February 27, a spokesperson for 10 Downing Street said: “The UK will not be seeking involvement in the UP/UPC system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU is clearly inconsistent with our objective of becoming an independent self-governing nation.”

The government’s confirmation ends speculation over whether the UK could have participated in the system post-Brexit.

The government’s line was previously that the UPC was “not an EU institution” and that the UK would play a part in the system.

In fact, just five months ago, Tim Moss, chief executive of the UKIPO, told Managing IP: “We believe the UK can continue to play a full role after Brexit and intend to explore continued participation in the unitary patent system and the UPC with our European partners.”  

However, the government’s stance has toughened since the general election on December 12 last year in which the Conservative Party won an 80-seat majority. 

Uncertainty about the UK’s involvement was not the only stumbling block holding the project back.

A constitutional challenge at the German Federal Constitutional Court is set to be decided in the first quarter of 2020, according to the judge in charge of the matter in an exclusive interview with Managing IP. If that ruling goes against the UPC then the entire project will be in serious doubt, if it isn’t already.

Should the UPC come into being, a key question will be whether it is still an attractive proposition without the UK. A survey of in-house counsel conducted by Managing IP last year suggested it would be.

To view our recent coverage on the UPC, click on the links below:

UPC case to be decided in early 2020

UPC report creates ‘point of legal difficulty’ for UK membership

UPC: businesses still on hold despite judge Huber announcement  

Avoiding the cliff edge: UKIPO’s Brexit preparations

UKIPO: UPC before Brexit ‘no longer possible’

Survey: UPC still attractive without UK  

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article