Context:
- Since the UPC launched in June 2023, Germany-based UPC divisions have consistently held the highest share of patent infringement filings. While the overall load has decreased recently (from 78.4% in the period of June to December 2025, to 66% in the first quarter of 2026: May 15, 2026 ip fray article), the divisions in Munich, Dusseldorf, Mannheim, and Hamburg continue to dominate. Earlier this year, the UPC Presidium confirmed that its Munich Local Division (LD) and its Düsseldorf Local Division would be opening second panels to deal with their large case volumes.
- A debate has begun brewing over the distribution of cases, with Prof. Willem Hoyng, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the UPC, seeking input from UPC firms on the question of the “uneven” distribution, including from the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW). The EPLAW’s letter summarizing all of its members’ responses was then made public (April 13, 2026 ip fray article), revealing polarized viewpoints between members residing in Germany and those residing in non-German jurisdictions. A policy proposal has also since been put forward to transition the UPC to a single, uniform language of proceedings – specifically English – across all its divisions, which ip fray founder Florian Mueller argued would not solve the UPC docket distribution problem and may also raise constitutional issues (May 20, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: CCIA Europe, the Fair Standards Alliance (FSA), the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), IP2Innovate, and the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) have written a letter to the UPC’s Administrative Committee to pause the establishment of further panels within the German LDs of the UPC, pending “a thorough assessment of their compatibility” with the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA).
Direct impact: The letter requests that the Administrative Committee address the matter as a “priority”, asserting that its letter has been sent in the “interests of certainty, the integrity of the UPC system and respect for the UPCA”. The UPCA “expressly” limits the number of Local Divisions per Member State, yet the subsequent trend establishing multiple panels within German LDs “works directly against this principle”, they wrote.
Wider ramifications: More German panels at the UPC would involve more German judges, including (most likely) Judge Oliver Schön (Presiding Judge of the 7th Civil Chamber at the Munich I Regional Court I), Judge Hubertus Schacht (Presiding Judge of the 21st Civil Chamber at the Munich I Regional Court), and Judge Katalin Tözsér (of the 7th Civil Chamber at the Munich I Regional Court).
Here is the letter, published on November 4, 2026:
The lobbyists’ letter points to an analysis published this week, in which SMM Legal partner Rafał Sikorski raised questions over whether the new German panels would conform to the UPC’s institutional framework (November 3, 2026 IPKat article).
In that analysis, Mr. Sikorski wrote that the jurisdictional rules in the UPC Agreement have strengthened the position of German local divisions of the UPC:
“According to art. 33(1)(a) patentees may initiate infringement proceedings in the local division of the Contracting State where the infringement has occurred or may occur or in the regional division, if the infringement has occurred or may occur in any of the Member States establishing that division. Given the expertise and the relative speed of the proceedings before German courts, it is no surprise that patentees are choosing to initiate proceedings in German local divisions rather than in other local or regional divisions of the UPC.”
The interpretation of the UPCA and the Statute “creates a tension” between the restriction to be found in art. 7(4) UPCA and a number of provisions of the UPCA and the Statute that suggest that a local or regional division might host more than one panel, he noted.
“One has to assume that creation of new panels in a given local division should not be allowed,” Mr. Sikorski claimed.