Context: A debate has been under way over the distribution of cases across UPC Local Divisions (LDs), the large majority of which are filed in Germany-based divisions. In April, the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) published a members’ letter that revealed a sharp divide: respondents based in Germany see no cause for concern, whereas those elsewhere warn that the concentration could undermine the UPC’s pan-European character, limit judicial diversity at first instance, and weaken political support among member states and prospective joiners (April 13, 2026 ip fray article). In a continuing series on that debate, ip fray has argued that one driver of forum choice is whether a panel indicates its preliminary views at the outset of a hearing, a practice followed in the Hague and the German LDs but not in Paris or Milan, and that all UPC panels should adopt it as a default, as many practitioners are otherwise disinclined to file (May 30, 2026 ip fray article).
What’s new: Mr. Lionel Vial, a French and European patent attorney and UPC representative, has published figures on LinkedIn (link to his LinkedIn post) that bring a national dimension to that debate. Building on an earlier post in which he cautioned that the rise in UPC filings might come at the expense of national courts, Mr. Vial presented data from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (TJP), France’s first-instance patent court, indicating a correlation between the UPC’s entry into force and a decline in the number of new patent cases filed there.
The venue is significant. For cases initiated after November 2, 2009, the Paris first-instance court has held exclusive jurisdiction over patent matters in France. Previously, seven first-instance courts shared that role. This is an exclusive jurisdiction, meaning there is no choice of venue. Because the TJP is the sole forum for French first-instance patent litigation, a contraction of its docket reflects a national trend rather than a redistribution among French courts.
Here is the graph from his post:
Mr. Vial’s chart plots two series for 2020 to 2025: new patent cases overall and the subset of new patent infringement cases. Both rose to a peak around 2022–2023 and then declined sharply, each reaching its lowest point in the period in 2025.
The post drew significant engagement. Niccolò Ferretti, an IP lawyer and UPC representative and a partner at Italian firm Nunziante Magrone, asked:
Since you mention it, do you have credible figures referring to the Italian judiciary system?
Mr. Vial replied that he did not and that he was “merely reporting something that would have been said during EPLIT’s congress”.
Magali Touroude, CEO of YesMyPatent, offered a perspective from French practice, observing that the disputes still filed in France tend to involve “small cases, or cases of infringement based on rather weak patents” brought by parties unwilling to “risk rubbing shoulders with the technical judges of the UPC”.
Patent attorney Alfeo Muraro wrote that it was “‘patently’ clear that this result was an objective of the entire UPCA operation, objecting to the “totally unjustified decision to extend UPC’s competence to classic EP patents”.
Shivam Dutt Nautiyal, who works in IP valuation and market research, took a measured view, suggesting that the UPC’s evolving role in Europe’s patent ecosystem will be “worth watching as more case law develops”.