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

No items found.
September 16, 2016
No items found.

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

Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged independent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
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.