Today marked the closing day of Kisaco Research’s fourth annual Patent Litigation Summit Europe, this year taking place at the impressive Beurs van Berlage in Amsterdam from January 18 to January 21. ip fray, the official media partner, wrote a summary of the first day of the event, which was fully dedicated to litigation at the Unified Patent Court (UPC): January 19, 2026 ip fray article.
Below is a short breakdown of the highlights from days two and three, which featured parallel tracks on technology and the pharmaceutical and biosciences fields.
UPC impact on global life sciences IP strategies remains “limited”
Across the three days, multiple polls were conducted at the event, including several on the use of the UPC by life sciences companies. One poll found that 50% of attendees’ (or their clients’) UPC strategy is still under internal debate – as opposed to being cautious or aggressive. Further, an overwhelming majority said they prefer to file parallel litigation in national courts rather than the UPC.
On a panel discussing the first two years of the UPC today, Siddharth Kusumakar at Powell Gilbert echoed comments made by Dechert’s Dr. Kassie Helm yesterday, that the BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision helped the U.S. “wake up” to the potential of the UPC.
But the general consensus across that panel was that the UPC has indeed had a “limited” impact on the global IP strategy of life sciences companies (so far).
The moderator, Oscar Lamme of Simmons & Simmons, turned to the audience and posed the same question:
The majority response?
Yes, the UPC has had a “limited” impact on the global IP strategy of life sciences companies (so far).
“It’s certainly attractive,” one panellist said, “and the threat of injunctions is very real… but we are not seeing a major uptake yet.”
In fact, a lot of the litigation in this sector in the UPC is between fellow innovators, or non-practising entities (NPEs) and innovators, such as 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience (June 16, 2025 ip fray article) and Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril Life Sciences (latest coverage here: November 26, 2025 ip fray article). But there is yet to be a significant amount of litigation between innovators and generics.
This is potentially because the system is more attractive for other types of litigation for the following reasons, one panellist emphasized:
- Speed: in some divisions, such as the Hague Local Division (LD), proceedings have so far been fast. They are also not being slowed down by the European Patent Office (EPO).
- Geographic scope: this makes it cost-efficient, especially when considering the additional long-arm jurisdiction consideration – and even more so than enforcing in the U.S. or UK.
- For NPEs: the use of preliminary injunctions (PIs) for leverage.
- For big players: they want to shape a system and as the court picks up more and more cases, they want to be a part of that.
The panellists also shared general strategic advice they would give to life sciences companies preparing for litigation in the UPC. This included:
- For defendants: really monitoring third-parties and opt-outs, as this is a key indication that you will get sued (better not to be hit by surprise).
- For claimants: while you have as much time as you want to prepare, make sure you “cross the Ts and dot the Is” and make the most of the amount of time you get.
- For both: work with a firm that knows your technology – especially in the biotech field, where it is often quite complex.
The panel also included George Moore, Assistant General Counsel at Viatris, James Robertson, Head of Global IP at BioMérieux, and Katherine Hinterberg, Senior Director of Patent Litigation at Moderna.
Preliminary injunction considerations
Another poll revealed that the majority of attendees (42%) think the biggest practical challenge with PIs is the risk of the irreversible commercial impact.
But Mr. Kusumakar, who serves as counsel to Edwards in its ongoing case against Meril, added that the UPC’s decision in that dispute in relation to the scope of the injunction should not decrease the attractiveness of the court. “If anything, I think it gives patentees comfort that they can approach the court and ask for injunctions, knowing that if appropriate, they could be tailored accordingly,” he commented.
On a separate panel specifically focusing on PIs, it was generally agreed that it is worth spending money on filing PIs, but that often it feels like you are spending a lot of money to get an answer that you know will be a “no”.
“It’s a bit frustrating when you think you have a good argument and the judge just doesn’t want to know about it,” one panellist said.
The panel was chaired by David Por at Clifford Chance, and included Matthew O’Neill, Director of European IP at Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Michal Porubsky, Senior Litigation Counsel at Novo Nordisk, Paul Ainsworth of Sterne Kessler, Selin Sinem Erciyas of Gun + Partners, and Richard Roberts of Potter Clarkson.
Long-arm woes and “seismic” changes at the PTAB
On a panel chaired by Kirkland & Ellis’s Daniel Lim, some panellists said they welcomed the BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision (February 25, 2025 ip fray article), while some expressed their concerns about using this in their global IP enforcement strategy.
Novo Nordisk’s Raquel Frisardi emphasized that from a rights holder’s perspective, it is “very exciting” to have an increasingly powerful tool to use in initial litigation. But she warned that it is a potential double-edged sword and should be used with caution:
“If you have to litigate a bunch of other litigation outcomes a year down the line, then it may be risky. It is exciting, but it should be used with caution. So exercise it with restraint.”
When considering the effects it could have in other jurisdictions, Mr. Lim turned to RNA Law’s Rob Rodrigues, who is based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mr. Rodrigues warned attendees that Brazilian judges “don’t really like it” when another judge makes a comment on preliminary injunctions, for example. He strongly believes long-arm would have a really negative impact on a global IP enforcement strategy (when taking Brazil into consideration) and says patentees should “proceed with caution” with such an approach.
In fact, he went so far as to say that a Brazilian judge could consider such a strategy a de facto invasion of borders.
Dechert’s Dr. Kassie Helm, who is based in New York, said she hoped BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux would help U.S. practitioners “wake up” and gain a more global, non-U.S.-centric view on IP enforcement. “In the pharma space, assets are global, so it is increasingly important that we think that way too,” she said.
Dr. Helm pointed to the BMW v. Onesta case (latest coverage here: January 17, 2026 ip fray article), in which Judge Alan D. Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas attempted to order Onesta to withdraw its cases before a court in Munich through an injunction issued in the U.S. She said it is “incredibly important” for U.S. practitioners to understand how injunctions affect the UPC and European national courts – no matter whether they are “in flux”.
Separately, Dr. Helm spoke about the “seismic” changes that have recently occurred at the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Institution for patents used to be as high as 70%, she noted, but within less than a year, this has now dropped to 16%.
“It’s difficult to keep up with the rationale – and the transparency for those changes has virtually gone away,” she commented. “There is now a whole new set of reasons as to why institution should not be granted.”
China: finding a balance between the polarities of IP and competition law
Another notable panel focused on the interplay between competition law and IP featured presentations from Julia Pike, Global Head of IP at Sandoz, Ozge Atilgan Karakulak of Gun + Partners, and Philippe Bessiere, Global Head of Patents at Pierre Fabre Group.
The panellists discussed the broader trend we are seeing in Europe (and other jurisdictions) where competition authorities are scrutinizing life-science strategies. This is mainly driven by frustration with price and delays to market entry, one panellist said, noting that the root cause is not always IP conduct.
Ms. Pike, who has served as Sandoz’s global head of IP since 2020, noted that innovation can be driven by monopoly rights like patents, but that innovation is also driven by free competition and access to information. She asked:
“What is the right balance between these polarities?”
To help answer the question, she used China as an example. The country has been regarded as “one of the most extensive abusers of IP for years and years – and was once famous for having effectively no IP rights,” she said. It was, of course, this absence of IP protection that led to one of the world’s largest generics industries to take hold of China.
But, much like we are seeing in the tech world, there has suddenly been a shift in this mindset, and China is suddenly interested in having patents, obtaining monopolies, and limiting competition. According to state broadcaster CCTV, in 2025, China became for the first time the leading country for licensing out innovative drugs (a total value of US$48.4 billion). Last week, AbbVie Inc. announced that it has signed a licensing deal for Chinese biotech firm RemeGen Co.’s experimental cancer drug RC148 worth over $5.6 billion.
“Impossible to ignore emerging markets”
Nokia’s Head of Global Litigation and Disputes, Clemens Heusch, spoke on back-to-back panels about venue selection in global enforcement strategies and UK interim licenses. He confirmed that Nokia still uses a mix of both national and UPC courts, and will continue to do so as long as it needs.
Meanwhile, one of his co-panellists expressed some doubt about the need for both and emphasized that he has “high hopes” that the UPC will be the venue of the future.
While noting that his “biggest wish” will be that one day Poland and Spain also join, Mr. Heusch praised the UPC:
“Even now, with the existing countries, the UPC covers an economic area as big as the U.S. (if not bigger). And while there were uncertainties in the beginning, we are now seeing a lot clearer – it is an important venue after all.”
However, the UPC is not always the key and in some cases, it “would not do the job alone”, Mr. Heusch said, pointing to the case in which Ericsson is suing Chinese smartphone supplier Transsion in the UPC, as well as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Colombia, and – for the first time – Morocco and Nigeria (November 14, 2025 ip fray article).
Both panellists agreed that it is valuable to enforce patents in the new emerging jurisdictions, but that the map is starting to get quite complicated. “So the enforcement team needs a crystal ball to see into the future – and a lot of it is guessing work,” Mr. Heusch said.
He recognizes that countries like India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria are all home to some of the biggest populations in the world. And it is becoming impossible to ignore these emerging markets. “But someone always has to be the first to try, and it’s not easy,” he said, adding:
“If a judge has never seen an SEP and an implementer argues that if they grant an injunction, then no one else will come back to their market, that can be scary for them. So you need to strike a balance when convincing the judge why they should grant injunctions.”
Arbitration offers are “de facto blackmailing”?
Separately, on a panel about the future of SEP litigation, Mr. Heusch clashed with other panellists about the need for interim licenses.
Alexander Prenter, a Senior Policy Officer at the Fair Standards Alliance, said that currently the IP ecosystem is “seriously dysfunctional” and, if likened to a married couple, “they would recommend a divorce”. With the current amount of distrust between companies, he emphasized that interim licenses are a practical solution that get to the core of the issue.
While Mr. Prenter noted that Nokia may not be suing SMEs, he said many are victims of such actions. “And I don’t want to see a future where it becomes untenable to have a business in Europe,” he said.
But Mr. Heusch said arbitration is a much more viable, reasonable way to set FRAND rates. He does not believe it should be up to one party to go to a court of their own choice.
He pointed to comments made by Mr Justice Richard Meade in a court hearing last week, in which he stated that if you offer to arbitrate and then withdraw all infringement cases elsewhere, then you are, by de facto, “blackmailing” because you are essentially telling the other side that you have to accept the arbitration offer if you do not want to be injuncted.
“On this particular point, Mr Justice Meade was wrong – because this indicates that you automatically get injunctions everywhere, but that’s not the case,” he commented.
The panel was moderated by Peter Pereira at Kirkland & Ellis and also featured Scott Hayden, Chief IP Officer at Amazon.
The need for speed
One final notable takeaway from the event was the criticism made about the UK trial system – and the increased use of AI models by UK judges. One speaker noted that the system is increasingly long and slow and “ought to be squeezed down a bit”. While they noted the importance of cross-examination, this was one area they suggested could be cut down.
Something that UK judges have now started to rely on to help them with understanding cases and writing decisions is artificial intelligence. England and Wales now have official guidance keeping judges in check – ensuring that there are no issues with data security and that judges take full responsibility for the decisions they come to, even if they partly relied on AI platforms.
One speaker praised ChatGPT for the way it was able to summarize a piece of English law. But, they warned, this is as far as it should be leveraged. It should not be used to decide a case, they said.