Legal opinion now available on the UK’s continuing participation in the UPC post-Brexit

No items found.
​
September 16, 2016
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

The IP Federation, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Lawyers Association have obtained the opinion of leading counsel (Richard Gordon Q.C. and Tom Pascoe, both of Brick Court Chambers) on the UK’s ability to continue to participate in the UPC post leaving the European Union. As a contributor to the costs of obtaining of this opinion and through its membership of the IPLA, EIP have obtained a copy and it is available to download here .

Contrary to some earlier views based on the CJEU’s Opinion 1/09, the opinion leaves the door open to continuing participation. This is a particularly important question to have answered as calls for the UK to ratify the UPC grow across Europe. We therefore consider this to be a particularly important document for the IP community (and indeed government) to consider.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings
03 March 2026
The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.
​
Long arm not available for amended patent
02 March 2026
IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.
​
Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time
02 March 2026
The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.
​