European Union: The UPC System: Transitional Period

Last Updated: 30 September 2014
Article by Ulrich Blumenröder

The exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC is not as exclusive as it appears. During a transitional period, a plaintiff will be able to decide on whether to file suit before the UPC or a national court. During that same period, patent owners will also have the option of making sure that their patents will not be handled before the UPC.

Transitional Period

This exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC is not as exclusive as it appears. During the transitional period provided for under Article 83(1) UPCA (7 years or prolonged to 14 years, see Article 83(5)), a plaintiff will be able to decide on whether to file suit before the UPC or a national court. During that same period, patent owners will also have the option of making sure that their patents will not be handled before the UPC. A patent owner can file an opt-out application for a specific patent.

Nonetheless, nothing is as straightforward as it appears at first sight.

1. Transitional Period - Dual Jurisdiction

Article 83(1) UPCA provides

During a transitional period of seven years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, an action for infringement or for revocation of a European patent or an action for infringement or for declaration of invalidity of a supplementary protection certificate issued for a product protected by a European patent may still be brought before national courts or other competent national authorities.

It can be taken that such dual jurisdiction is only available for traditional European patents and for certain of the actions listed in Article 32, namely infringement and revocation actions (including counter claims for revocation, Article 32(1)(e)). Actions for declaratory non-infringement (Article 32(1)(b)), for compensation for licenses (Article 32(1)(h)), concerning decisions of the EPO (Article 32(1)(i)) and relating to the use of the invention prior to the granting of the patent (Article 32(1)(g)) can definitely not go before the national court.

Note: Dual jurisdiction is not available for all actions, latest opinions need to be checked before filing.

The first open issue concerns actions for damages or compensation deriving from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application (Article 32(1)(f)). This action is not listed in Article 83(1) UPCA. Thus, on its face, damage claims have to be filed with the UPC. This literal interpretation is fostered by Article 83 UPCA. It is not only silent regarding damages, Article 83 UPCA is also completely tacit on the compensation mentioned in Article 32(1)(f). Moreover, any analogous application of another Article (here "Action for Infringement" in Article 83 UPCA) is usually not admissible. Hence, attempts to dismiss jurisdiction for damage claims in national courts will have to be expected.

However, they should not prevail. Article 32 UPCA is silent on claims for corrective measures as listed in Article 64 UPCA (i.e. recall and destruction), while this Article 64 UPCA explicitly lists "corrective measures in infringement proceedings". Neither does Article 32 UPCA express anything about the court's power to order the communication of information as mentioned in Article 67. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the court shall render decisions in this respect. Since Articles 64 and 67 UPCA are listed in the same section of the UPCA as Article 68 regarding damages, it appears that Article 32 UPCA considers corrective orders to communicate information and the like as integral part of an infringement proceeding. Likewise a damage award should be considered an integral part as well. As a result, the infringement actions listed in Article 83(1) UPCA are not limited regarding remedies and include damages and compensation awards.

Yet, Article 32 UPCA cannot be "argued away" to all extents. If all actions of Article 32 UPCA should be available in front of the national court during the transitional period, Article 83(1) UPCA would have been worded differently. Thus, Article 32 has to be construed in that separate actions for damages based on existing infringement decisions will no longer be allowed in front of the national court. Rather, such actions need to go before the UPC. At first sight, this should be rather a rare instance. Yet, in some countries such as Germany, infringement actions only include a motion to declare that damages are to be paid, being understood that the actual amount will be claimed in a separate additional action. Such separate additional action for damages will likely not be permitted before the national (typically German) court. Thus, (German) plaintiffs deciding to sue with the national court should take cautionary measures, i.e. to include the suit for damages into the infringement action by an action by stages (in German: "Stufenklage").

The second open issue concerns "actions for provisional and protective measures and injunctions" Article 32(1)(c) UPCA, i.e. preliminary injunctions. It appears to make no sense to allow the plaintiff to file infringement actions on the merits with the national court, but to not allow preliminary injunctions. However, the wording of Article 32(1)(c) UPCA is clear. Thus, Article 62 UPCA has the headline "Provisional and Protective Measures" and refers to "injunctions against alleged infringers". Moreover, Article 63 subsequently refers to "permanent injunctions", wherein "a decision is taken finding an infringement". Thus, the UPCA in its structure as well as Article 32(1) UPCA distinguish between "an infringement action" and a "provisional and protective measure action". This distinction is mirrored in Article 83(1) UPC. Only the infringement action is mentioned. Hence, making sense or not, the plaintiff runs a substantial risk with filing motions for preliminary injunctions with the national court. The risk does not include motions for inspection, known as "saisie-contrefaçon", Anton-Piller-Order or Fax-Card- Decision. Such motions are mentioned in Article 60(1)-(4) UPCA. And Article 62 on provisional and protective measures only refers to paragraphs (5)-(9) of Article 60 UPCA providing for the duty to lodge security and the like. Such motions are preparations for an infringement suit on the merits. They will still fall within the dual jurisdiction of the UPC and national court during the transitional period.

2. Dual Jurisdiction – Consequences

Initially, a "normal" controversy starting with a warning letter will proceed as before enactment of the UPCA. Yet, the options provided by the transitional period are tempting when court actions are to be filed. (Even though in the end the options are less wide spread than they appear.)

An infringement action of the patent owner before a national court in a first country can be followed by a revocation action before the UPC. The patent owner might feel induced to file a further infringement action in a national court of a second country. He can also decide to bring an infringement action before the UPC seeking injunctive relief and further measures. The patent owner will merely have to formulate motions excluding the territories of those countries where the national infringement actions have already been filed.

With a pocket deep enough, many constellations are possible. To avoid one constellation or the other a patent owner or a competitor might consider filing before particular courts. The most common idea mentioned for the competitor of a patent owner is to file a motion for non-declaratory judgment to ensure jurisdiction of the UPC. On first sight this does not stop the patent owner to file an infringement action in a national court. Article 83 UPCA does not rule anything to the contrary. However, Article 29 EU-Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction makes suits with the same subject matter inadmissible. And an infringement action pertains to the same subject matter as the suit for declaratory judgment for noninfringement. It is the concept of the Torpedo case law.1

Note: During transitional period actions in different national courts and UPC pertaining to the same patent and defendant are possible.

Hence, those potential defendants wanting to ascertain exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC for infringement matters can do so by filing a suit for a declaration of non-infringement. At any stage of the proceeding, however such potential defendants can decide to challenge the patent in suit before the UPC or national courts.

2.1. National Revocation Action as Reaction to UPC-Infringement Action

It would make little sense for a defendant before the UPC to rely on national courts for invalidity actions.

The UPC can be confronted with an infringement action (or a suit for declaration of non-infringement) and national invalidity suits in all countries to which the infringement suit pertains. If the UPC considers the arguments raised in the national invalidity suits to be convincing it may make use of a number of Rules.

- It can apply Rule 295 (k) allowing the court to stay a proceeding "in any other case where the proper administration of justice so requires". With so arguing a defendant opens the floor for a number of undecided questions, the main one being whether the principles of Rule 37.4 shall apply, i.e. whether in case of a high likelihood of invalidity a stay until a final decision on validity is called for. The title of Rule 37.4 ("Application of Article 33(3) of the Agreement") calls for not applying Rule 37. A stay in light of national invalidity suits has nothing to do with Article 33(3) of the Agreement. While the UPC might be inclined to apply the same principles as listed in Rule 32.4, there is hope the UPC would consider filing of many national invalidity suits to show the attempt to prolong proceedings and would therefore be very reluctant to stay.

The question becomes even more virulent in a constellation, however, where the UPC deals with an infringement action and national revocation actions in fewer countries than are subject to the infringement action. The UPC can hardly stay arguing that proper administration of justice so requires. Where a patent is not challenged, the UPC will have to assume that it is valid. The traditional European patent is not actually a "bundle of patents" as is often said. Yet, it has the same effect as a national patent in each of the countries where it is validated. Despite determination of patent infringement according to Article 25 of the UPCA, a claim for injunctive relief can have different results in each country – for instance due to different results of national revocation actions (other reasons my be national rights to prior use, a license granted for a particular territory, or older rights invalidating the European patent only for the territory of a certain country). Hence, if a patent is not challenged, the UPC will have to find for infringement for the respective country and consider staying the proceedings with respect to other countries. A rather "unpleasant" result. The UPC might try to avoid it by not staying at all using Rule 295 (k).

- The UPC might also invoke Rule 118.3 giving the UPC large discretion when rendering its decision.

Rule 118.3 (b) explicitly refers to "the" revocation procedure, i.e. the revocation procedure before the UPC. Hence, the stay or suspension mentioned in Rule 118.3 (b) does not appear to be possible based on this Rule.

Rule 118.3 (a) Alt.1 grants the power to render a decision under the condition that the patent is held valid. Again, however, the Rule refers to "the" revocation procedure.

It is Rule 118.3 (a) Alt.3 which might give the UPC an option to deal with the situation. It grants the UPC the power to render its decision "under any other term or condition". It is yet another provision leaving patent owners and potential defendants in doubt about the meaning and the application of the Rules. Rule 118.3 (a) Alt. 3 is not meant for national revocation actions since revocation actions are addressed in Alt.1. However, Alt.3 appears to be meant for issues not explicitly foreseen but nonetheless justifying to render a decision under a condition. Since the Rules do not refer to national revocation actions, it is more likely that the UPC will allow application of Alt.3 in the case of national revocation actions. Having said this, it is far from certain that the UPC will apply Alt.3 as a standard. The UPC may (not must) render its decision under a condition. Hence, where the UPC gets the impression that filing a national revocation action is without merit or that it was meant to slow down the process and thereby impair the principles of fairness and equity, rendering a decision under the condition of a certain result of a national revocation action becomes less likely.

The UPC not staying will in many cases result in a final decision before there is any national decision on the national revocation action. National laws having a tradition of bifurcation tend to solve the problems arising from such a situation by allowing rehearings. Germany does so on the basis of § 580 Zivilprozessordnung ("Restitutionsklage") – yet only within five years. Countries having no tradition of bifurcation do not deal with the situation that often. It can happen, however, where third parties challenge the validity of the patent in separate proceedings and the patent is actually invalidated rendering a previous infringement decision (and possibly a decision on damages due to such infringement) wrong. British law "solves" the problem by giving deference to the principle of res iudicata. The defendant could have challenged the patent but did not do so. The decision against him is final and stays so. A hard law, but not all different from German law. German law provides for the same if the deadline of five years has expired.

The UPCA provides for a rehearing in its Article 81. The article, however, lists only a certain number of situations which will likely have to be construed as enumerative. It even does not deal with the issue. A later revocation of a patent is not among them. Article 81 (1) (b) UPCA even mentions a final decision of a national court as a reason for a rehearing. Yet, such national decision must pertain to "an act which was held, ..., to constitute a criminal offence". Rarely, a decision of a national court to revoke a patent is based on an act constituting a criminal offense. Obviously, the drafters of the UPCA did not want to allow a rehearing due to a later revocation of the patent in suit. Given the British national concept, this is not violating equity either. The fact that the problem can arise more often under the transitional regime cannot allow for a different construction. Firstly, the drafters refrained from implementing a rule for the transitional period. Secondly, a defendant in an infringement proceeding has the possibility to avoid the result by filing a revocation action before the UPC and finally, overruling the apparently rather clear wording by applying the rules of mutatis mutandis with respect to such a new law is difficult to justify.

Consequently (or coincidentally), the Rules of Procedure do not provide anything different in its Rules 245 et seq.

Fortunately, the final finding of the above problem is of secondary importance. A defendant in an infringement action before the UPC will think twice before taking the risk of having to convince the UPC to stay in light of national revocation actions or even to accept a rehearing in light of a national revocation decision. She will bring the revocation action before the UPC.

2.2 UPC-Infringement Action following National Revocation Action

The above findings are disturbing in cases where litigation starts with one or more national revocation actions. Nothing stops the patent owner to force the defendant into an infringement action before the UPC. Yet, given the above, the consequence will often be that the defendant will at least feel forced into a revocation action before the UPC. If instructed given the principles of fairness and equity influencing a decision under Rule 118.3 (a) Alt.3, the danger of being confronted with a final – irrevocable – decision in an infringement action irrespective of the result of a national revocation action should be less significant. But not many practitioners will advise an alleged infringer to rely on a national court for revocation if the infringement is dealt with before the UPC.

2.3 Summary

Any defendant of an infringement action before the UPC will have to consider the above. In general this will result in a revocation action before the UPC. Article 83 UPCA and dual jurisdiction do not keep what they say on its face. Rather dual jurisdiction is mainly for the patent owner. As a rule of thumb if the patent owner wants to have everything with the UPC both infringement and validity will be handled there. The defendant can only truly choose where the patent owner wants to litigate nationally. In this case the defendant can file the revocation action either nationally or before the UPC.

Note: If an infringement action is pending before the UPC, the revocation action should be brought.


1 The Italian decision of 28 May 2013 in The General Hospital Corporation (Massachusetts General Hospital) and Palomar Medical Technologies Inc. vs. Asclepion Laser Technologies GmbH ("General Hospital vs. Asclepion") finding for jurisdiction of Italian courts for non-infringement of foreign patents even without a party residing in Italy only confirms this principle.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.