Geographic Scope of the UPC and Unitary Patent

No items found.
​
February 22, 2023
#
UPC
#
Basic
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

The grant of a European Patent allows patent rights to be obtained in respect of over 35 states by means of the respective validation procedures for those states. These include EU member states and non-EU states.

The scope of the UPC and a Unitary Patent corresponds to a subset of those EU member states. Currently, these are:

  • Austria (AT)*
  • Belgium (BE)*
  • Bulgaria (BG)
  • Denmark (DK)*
  • Estonia (EE)*
  • Finland (FI)*
  • France (FR)* _ UPC Central Division (Paris)
  • Germany (DE)* _ UPC Central Division (Munich)
  • Italy (IT)* _ UPC Central Division (Milan)
  • Latvia (LV)*
  • Lithuania (LT)*
  • Luxembourg (LU) _ UPC Court of Appeal
  • Malta (MT)
  • Netherlands (NL)*
  • Portugal (PL)*
  • Romania (with effect from 1 September 2024)
  • Slovenia (SI)*
  • Sweden (SE)*

* location of Local/Regional Divisions of the UPC

This geographic scope may vary over time as more states participate.

For a granted EP patent which is in force in any of the above states and which has not been opted_out, an action (e.g. infringement or revocation) in the UPC will be effective in respect of those states.

Proceedings for infringement in another state or for revocation of the national patent of any other state must be brought in the respective national court.

In the first nine months after grant, the EPO Opposition procedure provides a mechanism for centralised revocation for the entire bundle of all national patents (including those within the scope of the UPC) and any unitary patent resulting from a single granted EP patent.

For EP patents for which a Unitary Patent has been requested, the resulting Unitary Patent will cover the states which have ratified the agreement at the patent grant date. For example, a Unitary Patent obtained from an EP patent granted on 1 June 2023will cover the above states.

To obtain protection in other EPC states, such as the UK, Poland or Spain, or where a Unitary Patent has not been requested, the existing validation procedures for obtaining national patent rights (which can be enforced in the respective national courts) remain unchanged.

Additional states which may participate in the future include Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, and Slovakia. Of these, Ireland is the most likely to participate.

Latest article update: 24 September, 2024

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​