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

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 Court fees may be partially reimbursed for simpler procedures, such as when cases are heard by one judge, withdrawn or settled.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

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