Opinion: UPC up and running in mid-2022 – really?

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

Opinion: UPC up and running in mid-2022 – really?

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

In its outlook for the UPC, the preparatory committee casually breezes over some of the remaining thorny issues, including the London central division seat

Supporters of the Unified Patent Court would have watched with pleasure last week as reports emerged that Germany had formally ratified the UPC Agreement, bringing another chapter in this epic thriller to a close.

It came after two rounds of constitutional complaints threatened to put the brakes on the project, which was signed in Brussels eight and a half long years ago. Now, the stage seems set for a smooth transition to making the project a reality, at least according to the UPC preparatory committee.

In its latest update yesterday, August 18, the committee said the UPC is likely to come into force in mid-2022. Yes, that’s right: just one year from now.

Related stories:

Germany and two other UPC states must first ratify the Protocol on the Provisional Application of the UPC Agreement in order to kickstart the provisional application period (PAP) – which is the final phase of the court’s set-up.

It seems uncontroversial to suggest, as the committee has done, that this can take place imminently in Germany. After all, the powers that be have just ratified the UPC and removed a rather large block on its progress.

However, we move into slightly murkier territory when trying to predict which countries will follow suit and fill the two remaining spots. Some sources have suggested Austria and Malta are most likely, although there is no concrete evidence yet. Nevertheless, the preparatory committee suggests boldly that “these additional ratifications are expected to take place in a timely manner during autumn of this year”.

With the PAP then beginning, the governing bodies of the court would be assembled and all secondary legislation adopted, the committee says, adding that the budget and the IT systems would be finalised and the judges recruited. All of this would take just eight months, apparently.

London calling

There are at least two problems with this timeline, the first of which is a major omission: where will the central division seat that was given to London be relocated?

As UPC onlookers know all too well, Article 7(2) of the UPC Agreement specifically lists London as the host of one section of the central division, with the other two seats taken by Paris and Munich. The UK, France and Germany were the three biggest countries for European patents in force in 2012, the year before the agreement was signed, so all three were required to ratify the UPC for it to come into force.   

The problem? The UK withdrew from the UPC in July 2020 despite having ratified it two years before.

In an ideal world, the London reference really should be a minor inconvenience – just a simple deletion or switch would do – but it’s unlikely to be that easy when dealing with an intergovernmental treaty. Would the agreement need amending and re-ratifying? Could the inaccurate reference simply be ignored? Which city would replace London, and how would that be agreed? These appear to be questions that still don’t have answers, possibly because no-one knows them.

It seems odd – even disingenuous – therefore, that the committee didn’t even mention these issues in its latest update. The London reference appears to be a rather large stumbling block to the UPC’s implementation, especially one that is apparently going to be finalised in just 12 months from now.

Tight timings

The second problem with the timeline is that it seems, well, ambitious. The committee would have a lot to complete in the eight-month PAP, the most crucial of which (as it admits) would be the judges’ recruitment. Even on a smooth run, you feel that the committee would need everything to fall into place very nicely if it’s going to meet that timeline. It doesn’t seem to leave any wiggle room for unforeseen issues, especially with recruitment.

The main issue, I think, is not whether the UPC will ever become a reality or even a reality in mid-2022, but whether it’s sensible to be making specific predictions when there are so many unknowns. Anyone following this project from the start knows how many twists and turns there have been. Why not say something like: ‘We don’t know for sure when the UPC can or will come into force, but we hope it will be mid-2022’? That would seem more prudent to me.

I always used to say that the UPC would never come to fruition, and I will be more than happy to eat my words if I am wrong. But even if Germany has closed one of the final chapters of the UPC, a mid-2022 launch date seems more like fiction than reality to me.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
Gift this article