This is a summary of developments in and around the UPC in the calendar week of June 1, 2026.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
10. Around the court
10.1 Opinion: BSH and economic factors make Spain and Poland lower priorities for UPC membership than Ireland
In a pair of opinion pieces marking the UPC’s third anniversary, ip fray argues that the court’s long-term success will depend more on competitiveness and institutional resilience than on territorial expansion. The first article (June 1, 2026 ip fray article) contends that, despite the UPC’s remarkable establishment as a major patent litigation forum, signs of stagnation are emerging, with infringement filings failing to show the growth that might be expected from rising adoption of the Unitary Patent, increasing legal certainty, and the opportunities created by BSH Hausgerate v. Electrolux. The piece identifies Europe’s economic weakness, competition from other patent venues such as the United States, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, and the need for a unified response to external challenges as key issues facing the court, such as foreign attacks on the right to be heard.
The second article (June 6, 2026 ip fray article) addresses UPC membership, arguing that Spain’s and Poland’s continued absence is of limited practical significance for either the UPC or those countries. According to ip fray, BSH v. Electrolux already gives UPC decisions substantial relevance in many disputes involving non-member EU states, reducing the strategic value of further expansion. While the article sees little benefit in Spanish or Polish accession, it identifies Ireland as the most meaningful potential future member due to its English-speaking legal environment, multinational technology presence, and existing role in UPC practice.
In a LinkedIn post with new macroeconomic data not discussed in the articles above, ip fray points out that the UPC’s growth is not a given as the court does not exist in an economic vacuum.
10.2 Freshfields: in three years, no UPC motion for suspensive effect has been fully granted
According to a Freshfields statistical analysis released on the UPC’s third anniversary, motions for suspensive effect remain one of the most difficult forms of relief to obtain before the CoA. Reviewing cases from June 2023 through May 2026, Freshfields found that defendants sought suspensive effect in only 16% of cases involving appealable enforcement decisions, while 84% chose not to pursue such motions. More notably, not a single motion for suspensive effect was fully granted during the court’s first three years. Instead, 87.5% of motions were dismissed outright and the remaining 12.5% were only partially granted. The findings reinforce the widely held view among UPC practitioners that the CoA applies an exceptionally high threshold when asked to stay enforcement pending appeal, making immediate enforcement of first-instance decisions the norm rather than the exception.
10.3 Munich court orders coercive detention over attempt to block UPC enforcement
The Munich I Regional Court ordered six months of coercive detention against a Polytech managing director after finding that the company orchestrated a German nullity action through its holding company to prevent Silimed from pursuing infringement proceedings before the UPC. According to the court, the filing triggered Article 83(4) UPCA, rendering withdrawal of an existing opt-out ineffective and thereby blocking Silimed’s planned UPC action concerning EP2581193. The court held that the maneuver violated an earlier injunction intended to preserve Silimed’s ability to access the UPC, rejecting arguments that the injunction amounted to an impermissible anti-suit measure. Finding that Polytech had used a strawman to frustrate UPC proceedings, the court imposed the maximum six-month coercive detention available under German law, with a €200K fine as an alternative sanction.
10.4 UPC Inaugurates PMAC in Ljubljana
The UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) was officially inaugurated in Ljubljana on June 2, 2026, marking the launch of the UPC’s dedicated alternative dispute resolution framework for patent-related disputes. The ceremony brought together senior representatives from the UPC, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EPO, the European Commission, and the Slovenian government. Operating from seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon, the PMAC will offer mediation, arbitration, and other ADR services designed to provide parties with confidential and flexible alternatives to patent litigation.