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

Closest Prior Art Not Quite Close Enough
29 May 2026
WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.
​
Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected
22 April 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.
​
Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent 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.
​