This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the calendar week of May 18, 2026.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Judges from the Milan LD and the Munich I Regional Court separately discussed the procedural complications surrounding long-arm patent claims, reflecting broader uncertainty over the future scope and practicalities of cross-border enforcement in Europe.
At the same time, another panel focused on the increasingly important question of inventive-step analysis across Europe (May 19, 2026 ip fray article). UPC judges, EPO officials, and national judges compared the EPO’s structured “problem-solution approach” (PSA) with broader holistic methodologies traditionally associated with German and UK practice. The discussion repeatedly referenced the UPC CoA’s recent Amgen and Edwards decisions, which accepted both approaches provided the legal analysis remains substantively correct. UPC technically qualified judges Michel Abello and Elisabetta Papa also explained how technically qualified judges contribute to UPC panels through preliminary technical analyses and joint deliberations. Panelists further discussed the UPC’s growing reliance on the “could-would” standard, the emerging concept of the “inventive concept,” evidentiary issues surrounding expert submissions, and the role of AI in patent litigation. The EPO additionally confirmed that future EPO guidelines are expected to reference UPC Court of Appeal decisions beginning next year, signaling deeper institutional interaction between the UPC and EPO despite the absence of formal binding precedent.
8.2 Umicore IP Chief says UPC could become default forum for patent litigation
Sean Alexander, Head of IP at Umicore, said the UPC is poised to become the “default choice” for patent litigation across many industries, describing it as the biggest shift in the global IP landscape in his lifetime. Speaking at IP Dealmakers Europe, Alexander praised the UPC for offering faster and lower-cost patent litigation compared to U.S. courts and confirmed that Umicore is already pursuing its first UPC infringement action against Elemental Benelux while evaluating additional cases.
Alexander also said his focus since joining Umicore in 2024 has been to align IP strategy more closely with business goals, improve operational efficiency, and reduce external legal costs. While he called litigation inherently resource-intensive and often less rewarding than expected, he stressed that strong IP protection remains essential in innovation-driven industries, remarking that “innovation without IP is charity work.”
8.3 Monolingual UPC could create constitutional and SME access problems
In an opinion piece following debates around the UPC’s third anniversary, ip fray argued that proposals for a largely monolingual UPC would neither solve the court’s docket concentration in Germany nor meaningfully redistribute work to local firms, while potentially creating constitutional and access-to-justice concerns. The commentary contends that the dominance of German LDs reflects structural factors such as established client relationships, perceived judicial quality, and the efficiency of centralized UPC litigation rather than procedural imbalance. It also emphasized that SMEs may specifically benefit from retaining the ability to litigate in local languages because forcing all proceedings into English could increase costs and create practical barriers for smaller businesses.
The discussion also echoed remarks made by Prof. Dr. Wim Maas, partner at Taylor Wessing, during his inaugural lecture as Professor of International Patent Litigation at Universidade CatĂłlica Portuguesa in Lisbon on May 21, 2026. While Maas reportedly indicated that, for broader systemic reasons, he would generally favor a single-language UPC regime, he nevertheless argued that SMEs should always retain the right to litigate in the local language. His lecture reportedly focused heavily on the extent to which SMEs are actually using the UPC and the practical accessibility challenges smaller companies face within the current European patent litigation framework.