Exclusive: UPC chief judge signals new guidelines on judicial conflicts

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

Exclusive: UPC chief judge signals new guidelines on judicial conflicts

ParisSEPspanel
Klaus Grabinski at the 5th Annual Paris Conference on Standard Essential Patents

Klaus Grabinski addressed the controversy over part-time UPC judges in an exclusive interview with Managing IP

The Unified Patent Court could issue new guidelines on how to manage judicial conflicts of interest before the new system opens next year, the UPC’s chief judge has revealed.

Klaus Grabinski, president of the UPC Court of Appeal, made the comments exclusively to Managing IP in what was his first interview since he was appointed in October.

The chief judge was speaking to Managing IP live on the sidelines of the 5th Annual Paris Conference on Standard Essential Patents.

He was responding to the controversy over the selection of part-time technically qualified judges. Those judges will continue to practise in law firms or attorney firms while sitting at the UPC. 

Grabinski said the Presidium of the UPC will consider whether to include guidance on potential conflicts in a judicial code of conduct before the UPC Agreement (UPCA) enters into force.

“We could be more precise in drawing the borderlines with regard to conflicts of interest for part-time judges,” he suggested. 

The UPC chief judge added, however, that the use of such judges was a common feature in some UPC member states.

The UPCA is currently scheduled to enter into force on April 1, according to the UPC’s projected timeline.

In the interview, Grabinski also spoke about a likely divergence between the US and the UPC on the availability of injunctive relief, and endorsed the comments of Rian Kalden, his colleague on the UPC Court of Appeal.

Kalden, a Dutch judge, told a conference in Brussels last week that the UPC would not follow a US-style approach, which has effectively done away with injunctive relief in patent cases.

Grabinski also spoke about which aspects of the new system he was most looking forward to, and addressed concerns over the court’s electronic case management system.

The full interview will be published on Managing IP tomorrow, November 24.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article