Unified Patent Court: What Technical Experts Need to Know

By WeAreMonsters

The launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 1 June 2023 represents the most significant transformation in European patent litigation in decades. For technical experts who provide critical analysis in patent disputes, understanding the UPC's structure, procedures, and requirements is essential for effectively contributing to patent litigation across Europe. This comprehensive guide examines how the UPC patent expert system operates and what technical professionals need to know to navigate this new legal landscape.

The UPC promises to streamline European patent litigation by providing a unified forum for resolving disputes across participating EU member states. However, this transformation brings new procedures, evidence standards, and strategic considerations that technical experts must master to provide effective testimony and analysis.

What is the UPC: A New European Patent Court System

The Unified Patent Court represents a revolutionary approach to European patent litigation, fundamentally altering how patent disputes are resolved across the continent. Established under the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), originally signed on 19 February 2013, amended on 26 June 2023, and entering into force on June 1, 2023, the UPC creates a specialised court system with exclusive jurisdiction over European patents and the new Unitary Patent system across eighteen participating EU member states ¹².

The treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C 175/01, 20 June 2013) and available through EUR-Lex, establishes a unified court to settle disputes relating to European patents with unitary effect, supplementary protection certificates, and traditional European patents across participating jurisdictions ³⁴. This legal framework represents the culmination of decades of European integration efforts aimed at harmonising patent enforcement across the continent.

The UPC system was designed to address longstanding inefficiencies in European patent litigation, where patent holders previously faced the costly and complex challenge of pursuing parallel litigation across multiple national jurisdictions ⁵. Under the previous system, a patent holder seeking to enforce a European patent across Europe might need to initiate separate proceedings in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries, each with distinct procedural rules, evidence standards, and potential outcomes ⁶. Research by The Sedona Conference identifies this fragmentation as creating "significant costs, complexity, and inconsistency risks" that undermined effective patent enforcement across European markets ⁷.

The court's jurisdiction extends to both classic European patents (those granted before the UPC's establishment) and the new Unitary Patents, which provide unified protection across all participating member states through a single application process ⁸. This dual approach ensures comprehensive coverage while maintaining flexibility for patent holders who prefer traditional national validation approaches. The system includes a seven-year transitional period (potentially renewable for another seven years) during which classic European patents remain subject to parallel competence between national courts and the UPC ⁹.

For technical experts, the UPC represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The unified system creates consistent evidence standards and procedural approaches across participating jurisdictions, potentially simplifying expert preparation and testimony ¹⁰. However, experts must now understand how their analysis will be evaluated under UPC-specific rules and procedures, which differ significantly from traditional national court approaches. Academic analysis suggests that the UPC's specialised structure with technically qualified judges "enables more sophisticated technical discussions than might be possible in traditional courts with purely legally trained panels" ¹¹.

The UPC operates under civil law principles while incorporating common law procedural elements, creating a hybrid system that requires technical experts to adapt their approach to evidence presentation and cross-examination procedures ¹²¹³. This blend of legal traditions, described by legal scholars as an "open evidence system similar to common law jurisdictions," impacts how technical evidence is evaluated, presented, and challenged within UPC proceedings ¹⁴. Unlike strictly civil law systems that may restrict evidence types, the UPC permits various forms of evidence provided by the parties, including expert testimony subject to cross-examination procedures more familiar to common law practitioners ¹⁵.

UPC Structure: Central Division, Local and Regional Divisions

The UPC's architectural design reflects its mission to provide both specialised technical expertise and geographic accessibility across Europe. The court system comprises three primary components: a Court of First Instance with decentralised divisions, a centralised Court of Appeal, and a comprehensive Registry system ¹⁶. This structure represents a careful balance between centralised expertise and regional accessibility, addressing the diverse needs of European patent litigation while maintaining procedural consistency.

Central Division Structure

The Central Division, headquartered in Paris with a specialised section in Munich, serves as the primary venue for revocation actions and certain infringement proceedings ¹⁷. This division maintains particular expertise in complex patent validity challenges and typically includes panels comprising two legally qualified judges and one technically qualified judge ¹⁸. The Munich section specialises in patents related to mechanical engineering, while the Paris headquarters handles cases across other technical fields.

For technical experts, the Central Division's composition is particularly significant because the presence of technically qualified judges means expert testimony must address both legal standards and sophisticated technical analysis ¹⁹. These technically qualified judges possess university-level technical education and proven expertise in relevant technological fields, enabling more informed evaluation of complex technical evidence ²⁰. The selection criteria for technically qualified judges require demonstration of "proven expertise in a field of technology" and "proven knowledge of civil law and procedure relevant to patent litigation," ensuring panels possess both technical competence and litigation experience ²¹²².

The Central Division's role extends beyond standard validity challenges to include complex multi-party proceedings and cases involving fundamental questions of UPC law interpretation ²³. Technical experts working on Central Division cases should prepare for more intensive technical scrutiny given the concentration of technically qualified judges and the division's specialisation in complex patent disputes.

Local Divisions

Local divisions provide regional accessibility while maintaining specialised patent expertise. Currently operating in Brussels, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Vienna, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim, Munich, Paris, Milan, and The Hague, these divisions primarily handle infringement actions and related proceedings ²⁴. Each local division serves specific geographical regions and maintains expertise in the technological and commercial landscapes of their territories.

The composition of local division panels varies based on caseload and technical complexity. Standard panels comprise three legally qualified judges, but panels may include additional technically qualified judges when cases involve complex technical issues ²⁵. Parties can request technically qualified judges based on the relevant technology field, language requirements, and specific technical expertise needed for proper case evaluation ²⁶. The UPC's training framework ensures that technically qualified judges receive specialised preparation for their roles, with initial appointments including 51 technically qualified judges selected for their technical competence and litigation experience ²⁷²⁸.

Local divisions have demonstrated varying approaches to technical evidence evaluation in their early decisions. The Mannheim Local Division, for example, has established precedents regarding the temporal application of UPCA substantive law and the evaluation of ongoing infringement claims ²⁹. These decisions provide valuable insight for technical experts preparing evidence for specific local divisions. The Hamburg Local Division has clarified jurisdictional issues regarding authorised representatives and ancillary defendants, expanding the practical reach of UPC jurisdiction in complex multi-party disputes ³⁰.

Regional Division

The Nordic Baltic Regional Division, operating across Stockholm, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius, serves the specialised needs of participating Nordic and Baltic states ³¹. This division handles cases involving patents validated in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, providing technical expertise relevant to the innovation landscapes of these regions. The regional division model enables smaller member states to participate in the UPC system while maintaining access to specialised patent expertise and appropriate language capabilities ³².

Recent case developments from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division have included the first oral examination of expert witnesses in UPC proceedings, demonstrating the division's receptiveness to technical expert testimony in complex disputes ³³. This precedent suggests that technical experts should prepare for potentially intensive oral examination when appearing before regional divisions.

Court of Appeal

Located in Luxembourg, the Court of Appeal provides unified appellate review for all first-instance decisions, ensuring consistent interpretation of UPC law and procedure across all divisions ³⁴. The appellate court typically includes two technically qualified judges among its panel members, reflecting the continuing importance of technical expertise even at the appellate level ³⁵. This composition ensures that technical aspects of patent disputes receive appropriate expert attention throughout the appellate process.

For technical experts, understanding the appellate structure is crucial because appellate review may involve re-examination of technical evidence and expert testimony. Recent appellate decisions, including the landmark ruling in AIM Sport Development AG v. Supponor OY, have clarified important procedural aspects that affect how technical evidence is presented and evaluated ³⁶. The Court of Appeal's November 2024 decision in that case specifically addressed opt-out withdrawal procedures, demonstrating the court's willingness to engage with complex procedural and strategic issues that affect patent litigation strategy ³⁷.

Jurisdiction and Opt-Out Provisions

The UPC's jurisdictional framework operates through a complex system that balances unified enforcement with respect for existing national court systems. Understanding these jurisdictional nuances is essential for technical experts, as they determine which court will evaluate expert testimony and under what procedural framework.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Unitary Patents

The UPC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all Unitary Patents, which cannot be opted out of the UPC system ³⁸. This exclusive jurisdiction covers infringement actions, validity challenges, provisional measures, and declarations of non-infringement for all Unitary Patents across participating member states ³⁹. Technical experts working on Unitary Patent cases must therefore prepare their analysis specifically for UPC procedures and evidence standards.

Transitional Provisions for Classic European Patents

Classic European patents—those granted before the UPC's operation or those granted afterward but validated through traditional national procedures—operate under more complex jurisdictional rules during the seven-year transitional period (ending May 31, 2030, with potential extension for another seven years) ⁴⁰.

During this transitional period, patent holders face three strategic options:

1. Maintain UPC jurisdiction: Allow the patent to remain subject to UPC jurisdiction alongside continued national court jurisdiction, creating parallel competence ⁴¹
2. Opt-out of UPC jurisdiction: Remove the patent entirely from UPC jurisdiction, preserving exclusive competence in national courts ⁴²
3. Strategic timing decisions: Make jurisdictional choices based on litigation strategy and forum preferences ⁴³

Opt-Out Mechanics and Strategic Implications

The opt-out system provides patent holders with strategic flexibility while creating complexity for technical experts who must understand which procedural framework governs their analysis. Governed by Article 83(3) of the UPC Agreement, patent holders can file opt-out notifications during the "sunrise period" (March 1 – May 31, 2023) or at any time during the transitional period (until May 31, 2030, potentially extendable), provided no UPC action has commenced ⁴⁴⁴⁵. Academic analysis identifies opt-out as preserving "the status quo and eliminat[ing] the risk that a patent could be revoked or limited across all UPC member states through a single ruling" ⁴⁶.

Critically, opt-outs can be withdrawn to reinstate UPC jurisdiction, subject to specific limitations ⁴⁷. The November 2024 Court of Appeal ruling in AIM Sport Development AG v. Supponor OY significantly clarified withdrawal procedures under Article 83(4), determining that opt-out withdrawal remains possible even when national proceedings were commenced before UPC entry into force ⁴⁸. The court narrowly interpreted the prohibition on withdrawal to apply only to actions brought during the transitional period, reversing earlier restrictive decisions and reestablishing patent proprietors' ability to regain UPC access after initial opt-out ⁴⁹.

This withdrawal provision has created strategic opportunities for patent holders to reassess their litigation approach based on evolving case law and procedural developments ⁵⁰. Legal scholars note that the Court of Appeal's interpretation "reestablishes patent proprietors' strategic flexibility" while creating new considerations for timing opt-out withdrawal decisions ⁵¹.

For technical experts, opt-out decisions significantly impact engagement requirements. Patents remaining under UPC jurisdiction require experts to prepare for UPC-specific procedures, evidence standards, and potentially multi-jurisdictional enforcement. Opted-out patents continue under traditional national court procedures, which may vary significantly between jurisdictions ⁵². Recent procedural amendments requiring opt-outs to cover all European Patent Convention designations—not just UPCA member states—have raised complex questions about UPC reach across non-ratifying jurisdictions that technical experts must consider when analyzing infringement scope ⁵³.

Jurisdictional Conflicts and Resolution

Recent UPC decisions have clarified how jurisdictional conflicts are resolved when parallel proceedings exist. The Mannheim Local Division established that acts committed after June 1, 2023, are governed by UPCA substantive law, while earlier acts remain under national law frameworks ⁵⁴. This temporal distinction requires technical experts to carefully analyse the timing of alleged infringement when preparing their analysis.

The Hamburg Local Division further clarified that authorised representatives within the EU can serve as "anchor defendants" for jurisdictional purposes, expanding the UPC's practical reach while creating new strategic considerations for both patent holders and alleged infringers ⁵⁵.

Procedural Differences from National Courts

The UPC introduces procedural innovations that significantly impact how technical experts prepare, present, and defend their analysis. These differences reflect the court's hybrid legal approach, combining civil law foundations with common law procedural elements to create a streamlined yet comprehensive litigation framework.

Accelerated Timeline and Case Management

UPC proceedings operate on significantly compressed timelines compared to traditional European national courts. First-instance proceedings typically conclude within 12-15 months, requiring technical experts to prepare comprehensive analyses under tight deadlines ⁵⁶. This acceleration demands more efficient case management and evidence preparation strategies.

Written proceedings must be completed within strict deadlines: the Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence are followed by an optional Reply and Rejoinder, with the entire written phase typically concluding within 6-8 months ⁵⁷. Technical experts must coordinate their analysis with these procedural deadlines, often requiring preliminary expert reports during the written phase and supplementary analysis for oral proceedings.

Bifurcated vs. Unified Proceedings

Unlike German courts, which traditionally bifurcate infringement and validity proceedings, the UPC generally handles both issues in unified proceedings ⁵⁸. This approach allows technical experts to address both infringement analysis and validity challenges within a single proceeding, potentially increasing efficiency but also expanding the scope of required technical analysis.

The unified approach particularly benefits technical experts because their analysis of claim construction, infringement theories, and prior art evaluation can be presented cohesively rather than across separate proceedings ⁵⁹. However, this integration also requires experts to maintain consistency across multiple technical issues that might previously have been addressed separately.

Language and Translation Requirements

The UPC operates in English, French, and German, with specific language requirements varying by division and case circumstances ⁶⁰. Technical experts must consider language implications for both testimony and documentary evidence, particularly when presenting highly technical materials that may require precise translation.

Local divisions may conduct proceedings in the local language when all parties agree, but technical experts should be prepared to present their analysis in the court's working language ⁶¹. This requirement particularly impacts experts whose native technical terminology differs from the court's language, necessitating careful attention to technical translation accuracy.

Case Management Conferences and Interim Proceedings

The UPC employs mandatory Case Management Conferences (CMCs) to streamline proceedings and address procedural issues early ⁶². Technical experts often participate in CMC discussions regarding the scope of their analysis, timeline for expert reports, and coordination with other technical witnesses.

These conferences provide opportunities for technical experts to clarify their role, identify potential areas of disagreement with opposing experts, and establish efficient procedures for technical evidence presentation ⁶³. The interactive nature of CMCs differs significantly from traditional national court approaches, where expert involvement often begins later in proceedings.

Technical Evidence Requirements

Article 53 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement establishes the foundation for evidence presentation within the UPC system, providing comprehensive flexibility while maintaining rigorous standards for technical analysis ⁶⁴. Working in conjunction with Rule 170 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (2025 consolidated version, effective January 1, 2026), these provisions create a comprehensive framework for technical evidence that technical experts must master ⁶⁵.

Means of Evidence Under Article 53 and Rule 170

Article 53(1) of the UPCA specifies eight categories of permissible evidence, including "opinions by experts" as a distinct and valuable form of evidence alongside witness testimony, documentary evidence, and physical inspections ⁶⁶. Rule 170 expands this framework by distinguishing between "means of evidence" and "means of obtaining evidence," providing technical experts with clear guidance on both the forms their analysis may take and the procedures through which it may be obtained ⁶⁷.

Means of Evidence under Rule 170 include:

• Written evidence (printed, hand-written, or drawn), including documents, written witness statements, plans, drawings, and photographs
• Expert reports and reports on experiments conducted for the proceedings
• Physical objects, such as devices, products, embodiments, exhibits, and models
• Electronic files and audio/video recordings ⁶⁸

Means of Obtaining Evidence encompass:

• Appointing and hearing experts
• Conducting comparative tests and experiments
• Ordering inspection of places or physical objects
• Summoning, hearing, and questioning of witnesses ⁶⁹

This explicit recognition of expert opinions provides technical experts with clear authority to present comprehensive technical analysis beyond mere factual testimony. The UPCA's evidence framework treats all forms of evidence as having equal evidential value, rejecting hierarchical rankings that prioritize certain evidence types over others ⁷⁰. This equality principle means technical expert opinions carry the same potential weight as documentary evidence or witness testimony, provided the analysis meets quality and relevance standards.

Article 53(2) grants the Court control over expert questioning and limits such examination to necessary matters ⁷¹. This provision protects technical experts from irrelevant or harassing questioning while ensuring that cross-examination remains focused on technical issues central to the case.

Expert Report Requirements and Standards

Unlike some national jurisdictions, the UPC Rules of Procedure do not impose rigid formatting requirements for expert reports, providing technical experts with flexibility to present their analysis in formats most suitable for the technical issues involved ⁷². However, this flexibility requires experts to ensure their reports address all relevant technical issues comprehensively and clearly. The UPC's hybrid procedural system demands that evidence be offered contemporaneously with factual claims in written pleadings—not only when disputed—representing a significant departure from traditional German civil procedure ⁷³.

Expert reports must demonstrate independence and objectivity, with experts required to declare any potential conflicts of interest or relationships that might affect their analysis ⁷⁴. The UPC emphasizes the expert's duty to the court rather than to the appointing party, requiring technical experts to provide balanced analysis even when engaged by one side. This approach reflects the influence of civil law traditions within the UPC's hybrid system, where expert independence receives particular emphasis ⁷⁵.

Technical experts must provide detailed explanations of their methodology, assumptions, and conclusions, enabling effective cross-examination and peer review ⁷⁶. This transparency requirement often exceeds national court standards and requires experts to document their analytical approach more thoroughly than traditional practice might demand. Academic analysis suggests that the UPC's approach to expert evidence represents "a significant evolution in European patent litigation practice" that demands higher standards of expert preparation and disclosure ⁷⁷.

Comparative Tests and Experiments

Article 53's explicit authorisation of "comparative tests or experiments" provides technical experts with broad authority to conduct practical testing when relevant to patent disputes ⁷⁸. Rule 170 reinforces this authority by specifically listing "reports on experiments conducted for the proceedings" as admissible means of evidence ⁷⁹. This provision enables experts to go beyond theoretical analysis and provide empirical evidence regarding patent infringement, validity, and related technical issues.

Technical experts conducting experimental analysis must ensure their testing methodology reflects real-world conditions relevant to the patent dispute ⁸⁰. The court may scrutinize experimental design, control variables, and result interpretation, requiring experts to maintain rigorous scientific standards throughout their analysis. The UPC's technically qualified judges are particularly well-positioned to evaluate experimental methodology, given their university-level technical education and proven expertise in relevant technological fields ⁸¹.

Documentation of experimental procedures becomes crucial for UPC proceedings, as opposing parties and the court must be able to evaluate the reliability and relevance of experimental results ⁸². Technical experts should maintain comprehensive records of their testing procedures, data collection, and analysis methods to support effective cross-examination and peer review.

Court-Appointed vs. Party-Appointed Experts

The UPC system distinguishes between two categories of technical experts: party-appointed experts and court-appointed experts ⁸³. The court retains authority to appoint its own technical experts when needed for proper case resolution ⁸⁴. This dual approach reflects the influence of both common law (party expert) and civil law (court expert) traditions within the UPC's hybrid system.

Party-appointed technical experts must be prepared to coordinate with court-appointed experts and potentially respond to court expert analysis that may differ from their conclusions. This coordination requirement emphasizes the importance of maintaining professional relationships and demonstrating flexibility when court-appointed experts raise different technical perspectives ⁸⁵. Unlike the European Patent Office's Boards of Appeal, which rely minimally on expert witness testimony due to their technical expertise, the UPC has demonstrated receptiveness to expert testimony in complex technical disputes, as evidenced by recent oral examinations of expert witnesses ⁸⁶⁸⁷.

Cross-Examination Procedures for Technical Experts

The UPC's hybrid procedural system incorporates common law-style cross-examination procedures that differ significantly from traditional European civil law approaches ⁸⁸. During oral hearings, both the presiding judge and panel judges may pose questions to technical experts, and crucially, parties may also question experts under the control of the presiding judge ⁸⁹. The presiding judge may prohibit questions not designed to elicit admissible evidence ⁹⁰.

This cross-examination framework requires technical experts to prepare for intensive questioning from multiple sources: opposing counsel, the court panel, and potentially court-appointed experts. The presence of technically qualified judges creates additional complexity, as these judicial experts can engage in sophisticated technical questioning that may exceed the depth typical in purely legally trained courts ⁹¹.

Technical Expert Role in UPC Proceedings

The UPC system creates unique opportunities and responsibilities for technical experts, requiring adaptation to hybrid legal procedures while maintaining the rigorous technical analysis essential for effective patent dispute resolution. Understanding these role expectations enables technical experts to contribute effectively to UPC proceedings.

Pre-Hearing Preparation and Report Development

Technical experts in UPC proceedings must prepare for more intensive pre-hearing engagement compared to traditional national court practice. The accelerated UPC timeline requires experts to develop comprehensive technical analysis early in proceedings, often before complete discovery or disclosure of opposing positions ⁹².

Expert preparation must account for the unified approach to infringement and validity issues, requiring comprehensive analysis across multiple technical areas that might traditionally be separated ⁹³. Technical experts should prepare for questioning on claim construction, prior art analysis, infringement theories, and validity challenges within integrated proceedings.

The international nature of UPC proceedings requires technical experts to consider varying technical standards, industry practices, and regulatory frameworks across participating member states ⁹⁴. This broader perspective may require additional research and analysis compared to single-jurisdiction national court proceedings.

Oral Hearing Participation and Cross-Examination

UPC oral hearings provide technical experts with opportunities for direct interaction with technically qualified judges who possess relevant technical expertise ⁹⁵. This interaction enables more sophisticated technical discussions than might be possible in traditional courts with purely legally trained panels.

Cross-examination procedures under UPC Rules 104(h) and 112.3 grant both opposing counsel and the court significant latitude to question technical experts ⁹⁶. Technical experts must prepare for detailed questioning regarding their methodology, assumptions, alternative approaches, and potential limitations of their analysis.

The presiding judge maintains control over expert examination and may prohibit questions not designed to produce admissible evidence ⁹⁷. This protection enables technical experts to focus on relevant technical issues while avoiding irrelevant or harassing questions that might distract from substantive technical analysis.

Interaction with Technically Qualified Judges

The presence of technically qualified judges on UPC panels creates unique dynamics for technical expert testimony. These judges possess university-level technical education and proven expertise in relevant technological fields, enabling sophisticated evaluation of expert analysis ⁹⁸.

Technical experts should prepare for direct questioning from technically qualified judges who may probe deeper into technical issues than legally trained judges might pursue ⁹⁹. This interaction can enhance the quality of technical analysis by identifying areas requiring clarification or additional explanation.

The technically qualified judges' expertise enables more efficient proceedings by reducing the need for extensive technical background explanations ¹⁰⁰. Technical experts can focus on disputed technical issues rather than fundamental technical education, potentially improving the depth and focus of their analysis.

Coordination with Legal Teams and Case Strategy

UPC proceedings require enhanced coordination between technical experts and legal teams due to the unified treatment of infringement and validity issues ¹⁰¹. Technical experts must understand how their analysis supports broader case strategy across multiple technical and legal issues.

The international scope of UPC jurisdiction requires technical experts to coordinate with legal teams regarding enforcement strategy, potential appeal considerations, and interaction with parallel proceedings in non-participating jurisdictions ¹⁰². This coordination may involve technical experts in strategic discussions that extend beyond traditional technical analysis roles.

Technical experts must maintain awareness of procedural deadlines and case management requirements that may affect their analysis timeline and presentation opportunities ¹⁰³. This procedural awareness requires closer integration with legal team case management than traditional national court practice might demand.

Critical Mistakes Technical Experts Must Avoid

Working within the UPC system demands awareness of potential pitfalls that can undermine expert credibility and case outcomes. Understanding these common errors enables technical experts to deliver more effective contributions to UPC proceedings.

Procedural Missteps

Mistake	Consequence	How to Avoid
Missing procedural deadlines	Expert evidence excluded from proceedings	Build timeline buffers; coordinate closely with legal team on UPC's compressed schedules
Failing to disclose conflicts of interest	Expert testimony challenged or excluded; potential professional sanctions	Complete thorough conflict checks before engagement; disclose any potential relationship proactively
Underestimating technically qualified judges	Analysis scrutinised more rigorously than anticipated; credibility damage	Prepare for sophisticated technical questioning; avoid oversimplification
Using US procedural assumptions	Evidence rejected or improperly formatted; procedural objections	Study UPC Rules of Procedure; seek guidance from UPC-experienced legal counsel
Neglecting cross-examination preparation	Poor performance under questioning; weakened expert credibility	Practise with legal team; anticipate opposing counsel's technical challenges

Analytical Errors

Mistake	Consequence	How to Avoid
Inconsistent positions across infringement and validity	Cross-examination exposes contradictions; expert credibility destroyed	Maintain unified analytical framework; document reasoning thoroughly
Ignoring multi-jurisdictional technical standards	Analysis incomplete; fails to address variation across UPC member states	Research applicable standards in all relevant jurisdictions
Overreaching beyond technical expertise	Expert opinion given less weight; potential exclusion of testimony	Stay within demonstrated competence; acknowledge limitations clearly
Insufficient documentation of methodology	Unable to defend analysis under scrutiny; conclusions questioned	Maintain comprehensive records; explain analytical approach in detail
Failing to consider claim construction variations	Analysis rendered irrelevant if court adopts different interpretation	Address alternative constructions; provide conditional analysis where appropriate

Evidence Presentation Failures

Mistake	Consequence	How to Avoid
Experimental protocols lacking reproducibility	Test results challenged or excluded	Document procedures comprehensively; use established methodologies
Advocacy rather than objective analysis	Expert testimony discounted; professional reputation damaged	Maintain independence regardless of appointing party; acknowledge weaknesses
Inadequate translation of technical documents	Key evidence misunderstood or excluded	Use qualified technical translators; verify accuracy of specialised terminology
Presenting evidence too late in proceedings	Evidence excluded under UPC's front-loaded procedural rules	Submit evidence contemporaneously with factual claims in written pleadings

Costs and Practical Realities

Understanding the financial and practical aspects of UPC proceedings enables technical experts to provide valuable context for litigation strategy decisions and to manage their own engagement expectations effectively.

Court Fees and Cost Recovery

The UPC operates with a fee structure comprising fixed and value-based components. For infringement actions, court fees range from €11,000 for disputes valued under €500,000 to €325,000 for disputes exceeding €50 million ¹⁰⁴. Revocation actions carry fixed fees of €20,000 regardless of patent value ¹⁰⁵.

Cost recovery follows the "loser pays" principle common in European litigation, with recoverable costs capped according to value brackets. For disputes under €1 million, cost caps typically range from €38,000 to €112,000 depending on precise value ¹⁰⁶. These caps include reasonable legal representation costs and expert fees, making technical expert engagement costs a significant strategic consideration.

Technical Expert Fee Considerations

Engagement Type	Typical Fee Range	Key Cost Drivers
Preliminary technical assessment	€5,000 – €15,000	Technology complexity; document volume
Full expert report	€20,000 – €80,000	Analysis depth; multi-jurisdictional scope
Oral hearing preparation and testimony	€10,000 – €30,000	Hearing duration; cross-examination intensity
Court-appointed expert engagement	Determined by court	Scope defined by court order

These estimates reflect general market rates and vary significantly based on expert qualifications, case complexity, and the specific requirements of individual proceedings. Technical experts should discuss fee structures with instructing legal teams early in engagement.

Timeline Realities

The UPC's accelerated procedures create practical implications for technical expert engagement:

Phase	Typical Duration	Expert Involvement
Written procedure	6 – 8 months	Primary expert report preparation; response to opposing evidence
Interim procedure	2 – 4 months	Supplementary analysis; case management conference participation
Oral procedure	1 – 2 days	Expert testimony; cross-examination response
Total first instance	12 – 15 months	Ongoing availability for supplementary questions
Appeal	6 – 12 months additional	Potential re-examination of technical evidence

These compressed timelines demand that technical experts maintain availability throughout proceedings and prepare comprehensive analysis early in the case. The UPC's front-loaded procedures mean expert evidence must be substantially complete before oral hearings commence.

Practical Preparation Checklist

Technical experts preparing for UPC engagement should address these practical matters:

• Confirm UPC procedural familiarity or arrange appropriate training
• Establish communication protocols with instructing legal team
• Verify language capabilities for court working language
• Assess availability throughout anticipated case timeline
• Complete conflict of interest assessment covering all parties and related entities
• Clarify fee structure and billing arrangements
• Establish document management and confidentiality protocols
• Identify any multi-jurisdictional standards requiring consideration

Strategic Considerations: When to Use UPC vs National Courts

The coexistence of UPC and national court jurisdiction during the transitional period creates complex strategic considerations that significantly impact technical expert engagement and analysis requirements. Understanding these strategic factors enables technical experts to provide more effective support for litigation decisions and case preparation.

Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement Advantages

The UPC's primary strategic advantage lies in enabling patent holders to obtain unified enforcement across all participating member states through a single proceeding ¹⁰⁷. This capability eliminates the costs, complexity, and inconsistency risks associated with parallel litigation across multiple national jurisdictions ¹⁰⁸.

For technical experts, unified enforcement creates opportunities to provide comprehensive technical analysis that addresses infringement and validity issues across multiple markets simultaneously ¹⁰⁹. This broader scope may require technical experts to consider varying technical standards, market practices, and regulatory frameworks across participating jurisdictions within their analysis.

The unified approach also enables technical experts to present consistent technical theories across multiple jurisdictions, avoiding the potential inconsistencies that might arise from separate proceedings with different expert approaches or emphases ¹¹⁰.

Specialised Technical Expertise Considerations

UPC panels' inclusion of technically qualified judges creates advantages for cases involving complex technical issues that benefit from specialised judicial expertise ¹¹¹. Technical experts working on sophisticated technology cases may find that technically qualified judges provide more informed evaluation of their analysis compared to purely legally trained national court panels.

However, this specialised expertise also creates higher expectations for technical expert analysis quality and comprehensiveness ¹¹². Technical experts must prepare more rigorous analysis when presenting to technically qualified judges who can identify analytical weaknesses or methodological limitations that might escape detection in traditional courts.

The Central Division's specialised structure, with its concentration of technically qualified judges and focus on validity challenges, provides particular advantages for complex prior art analysis and patentability assessment ¹¹³.

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Technical Expert Engagement

UPC proceedings' accelerated timeline and comprehensive scope create both cost savings and additional expenses that affect technical expert engagement decisions ¹¹⁴. While unified proceedings eliminate duplication across multiple national jurisdictions, they may require more intensive expert preparation within compressed timelines. The court's commitment to expedited proceedings, demonstrated in cases like Bitzer v. Carrier where a UPC revocation action was completed within approximately one year, requires technical experts to adapt to compressed preparation schedules ¹¹⁵.

Technical experts must prepare for broader analytical scope within UPC proceedings, potentially increasing preparation time and complexity compared to traditional national court engagements ¹¹⁶. The UPC's "front-loaded" procedures with short deadlines require early economic and technical analysis, particularly in damages proceedings where Rule 126 allows separate damages phases within one year of final decision ¹¹⁷. However, this increased investment may yield greater strategic value through unified enforcement opportunities across 18 EU member states representing approximately €14 trillion GDP ¹¹⁸.

The opt-out withdrawal provisions enable patent holders to reassess their strategic approach based on initial technical expert analysis, potentially optimising forum selection based on case-specific technical factors ¹¹⁹. Recent case management developments show the court's willingness to prioritise UPC proceedings over parallel EPO opposition proceedings when expeditious resolution is possible, creating additional strategic considerations for technical expert engagement timing ¹²⁰.

Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Analysis

The emergence of Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation at the UPC has created new opportunities for technical experts specialised in standards analysis and FRAND licensing evaluation. The UPC's first FRAND injunction in November 2024 (Panasonic v. OPPO) established that the court will apply a pragmatic rather than formalistic approach to the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, requiring detailed technical assessment of the parties' conduct during licensing negotiations ¹²¹.

Technical experts working on SEP cases must prepare to analyze essentiality claims, standards compliance, and the technical merits of FRAND defenses ¹²². The court's pragmatic approach to FRAND negotiations requires technical experts to evaluate the reasonableness of licensing offers and the technical justifications for negotiation positions. Academic research identifies this as a "major research focus" requiring specialised expertise in standards development, FRAND determination methodologies, and royalty calculations ¹²³.

For technical experts, SEP litigation presents unique challenges because panels may include judges with specialised telecommunications or standards expertise, requiring higher levels of technical precision in standards-related analysis ¹²⁴. The international scope of UPC SEP decisions—potentially affecting licensing negotiations worldwide—also increases the stakes for technical expert analysis quality and thoroughness.

Risk Assessment and Uncertainty Factors

The UPC's relative novelty creates additional uncertainty factors that affect strategic decision-making and technical expert engagement ¹²⁵. Limited case law and evolving procedural practices require technical experts to remain flexible and adaptive in their analytical approaches.

Recent UPC decisions have begun establishing precedents regarding technical evidence evaluation, but the evolving nature of UPC jurisprudence requires technical experts to monitor developing case law and adapt their practices accordingly ¹²⁶.

The potential for conflicting decisions between UPC and national courts during the transitional period creates additional complexity for technical experts involved in related proceedings across different forums ¹²⁷.

Appeal and Enforcement Considerations

The centralised UPC Court of Appeal in Luxembourg provides unified appellate review, potentially creating more consistent technical precedents compared to varying national court approaches ¹²⁸. Technical experts should consider how their analysis might be evaluated on appeal and prepare accordingly for potential appellate review.

The UPC's broad enforcement authority across participating member states creates significant strategic value for patent holders but also increases the potential impact of adverse decisions ¹²⁹. Technical experts must consider these enhanced stakes when developing their analytical approach and presentation strategy.

Decision Framework: UPC vs National Courts

When advising on forum selection, technical experts should consider how these factors affect their analysis requirements:

Factor	Favours UPC	Favours National Court
Geographic scope of infringement	Multi-jurisdictional enforcement needed	Single-country dispute
Technical complexity	Technically qualified judges beneficial	Established national court expertise in specific technology
Timeline requirements	12-15 month resolution acceptable	Urgent interim relief needed (national courts may be faster for PI)
Validity challenge risk	Comfortable defending validity pan-European	Prefer separate national proceedings to contain validity risk
Cost sensitivity	Value justifies pan-European enforcement	Limited budget favours single-jurisdiction action
Expert evidence emphasis	Complex technical analysis central to case	Straightforward technical issues
Appeal risk tolerance	Single appellate review acceptable	Prefer multiple national appeal options
Precedent sensitivity	Comfortable with pan-European binding decision	Prefer jurisdiction-specific outcomes

Conclusion

The Unified Patent Court represents a fundamental transformation in European patent litigation that creates both opportunities and challenges for technical experts. As the UPC patent expert system continues to evolve, we see technical professionals adapting their practices to meet the unique requirements of this hybrid legal framework whilst maintaining the rigorous analytical standards essential for effective patent dispute resolution.

In our experience, the UPC's unified approach to European patent litigation offers significant advantages through streamlined procedures, specialised technical expertise, and comprehensive multi-jurisdictional enforcement. Technical experts who master the UPC's procedural requirements, evidence standards, and strategic considerations will be well-positioned to provide valuable contributions to patent litigation across participating European Union member states.

Success in the UPC system requires technical experts to embrace broader analytical scope, compressed timelines, and enhanced coordination with legal teams whilst adapting to the unique dynamics created by technically qualified judges and unified proceedings. As UPC case law continues to develop, technical experts must remain current with evolving procedural practices and judicial expectations to maintain effective practice in this transformed European patent litigation landscape.

The strategic considerations surrounding UPC versus national court jurisdiction create additional complexity that requires technical experts to understand not only technical analysis requirements but also the broader litigation strategy implications of forum selection. This enhanced role demands greater integration between technical analysis and legal strategy than traditional patent litigation might require.

For technical experts committed to excellence in European patent litigation, the UPC system offers significant opportunities to contribute to consequential patent disputes whilst working with specialised judges and streamlined procedures designed to enhance the quality and efficiency of patent dispute resolution. Mastering the UPC patent expert requirements will become increasingly essential as this system matures and potentially expands to additional European Union member states.

The future of European patent litigation increasingly lies with the UPC system, making technical expert adaptation not merely advisable but essential for continued effectiveness in this critical area of intellectual property law.

---

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the Unified Patent Court system and is not intended as legal advice. The procedural and jurisdictional matters discussed are complex and subject to ongoing interpretation by the UPC and its divisions. Technical experts and patent holders should consult qualified legal counsel experienced in UPC proceedings for advice specific to their circumstances. WeAreMonsters provides technical expert services and does not offer legal advice or legal representation.

---

References

Footnotes

1. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "The Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en ↩

2. European Union. (2013). "Agreement on a Unified Patent Court." Official Journal of the European Union, C 175/01, 20 June 2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42013A0620(01) ↩

3. Council of the European Union. (2013). "Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2013001 ↩

4. EUR-Lex. (2023). "Unified Patent Court Agreement | EUR-Lex." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:2406030201_2 ↩

5. European Patent Office. (2023). "Unified Patent Court | Epo.org." https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court ↩

6. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Presentation | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/presentation ↩

7. The Sedona Conference. (2023). "Framework for Analysis of European Unified Patent Court." The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 24, May 2023. https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/Framework-for-Analysis-of-European-Unified-Patent-Court-2023.pdf ↩

8. European Patent Office. (2023). "What are the arrangements for the transitional period (opt-out scheme and choice of forum) for the Unified Patent Court?" https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements-transitional-period-opt ↩

9. European Patent Office. (2024). "The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-up/2024/uppg_a_ii_3.html ↩

10. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

11. The Sedona Conference. (2024). "UPC Framework March 2024 Update." 20%2B%20March%202024%20Update%20-%20NEW.pdf">https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/meeting_paper/3.2_TSC%20UPC%20Framework%20%2B%20March%202024%20Update%20-%20NEW.pdf ↩

12. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

13. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

14. Noerr. (2023). "Similar, yet Different – the Rendering of Evidence Before the UPC." https://www.noerr.com/en/insights/similar-yet-different-the-rendering-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

15. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

16. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Presentation | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/presentation ↩

17. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

18. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 8 – Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_8.html ↩

19. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

20. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 15 – Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_15.html ↩

21. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 15 – Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_15.html ↩

22. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Information Sheet on Eligibility Criteria and National Requirements." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/information_sheet_en_and_national_eligibility_criteria.pdf ↩

23. The Sedona Conference. (2024). "UPC Framework March 2024 Update." 20%2B%20March%202024%20Update%20-%20NEW.pdf">https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/meeting_paper/3.2_TSC%20UPC%20Framework%20%2B%20March%202024%20Update%20-%20NEW.pdf ↩

24. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Presentation | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/presentation ↩

25. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

26. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

27. European Patent Office. (2015). "Preselection and training of UPC judges." Supplementary publication 5, OJ EPO 2015, 42. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2015/etc/se5/p42.html ↩

28. J A Kemp. (2022). "UPC Judges Announced." https://jakemp.com/en/news/upc-judges-announced/ ↩

29. UPC.law. (2025). "2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf." https://upc.law/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf ↩

30. Unified Patent Court. (2025). "Hamburg Decision 20368_2025." 2025%20Decision%20final%2014082025_signed%20all.pdf">https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/20368_2025%20Decision%20final%2014082025_signed%20all.pdf ↩

31. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Presentation | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/presentation ↩

32. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Presentation | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/court/presentation ↩

33. Taylor Wessing. (2025). "The UPC: The new forum defines its jurisdictional boundaries." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/04/the-upc ↩

34. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

35. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

36. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

37. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

38. European Patent Office. (2023). "What are the arrangements for the transitional period (opt-out scheme and choice of forum) for the Unified Patent Court?" https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements-transitional-period-opt ↩

39. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩

40. European Patent Office. (2023). "What are the arrangements for the transitional period (opt-out scheme and choice of forum) for the Unified Patent Court?" https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements-transitional-period-opt ↩

41. Morrison Foerster. (2023). "The Unified Patent Court: Opting European Patents Out | Morrison Foerster." https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230217-opting-european-patents-out ↩

42. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Opt-Out | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/opt-out ↩

43. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

44. European Patent Office. (2023). "What are the arrangements for the transitional period (opt-out scheme and choice of forum) for the Unified Patent Court?" https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements-transitional-period-opt ↩

45. European Patent Office. (2023). "What are the arrangements for the transitional period (opt-out scheme and choice of forum) for the Unified Patent Court?" https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements-transitional-period-opt ↩

46. Academia.edu. (2020). "The Opt-Out under the UPC-Rules of Procedure." https://www.academia.edu/43187269/The_Opt_Out_under_the_UPC_Rules_of_Procedure ↩

47. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Opt-Out | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/opt-out ↩

48. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

49. Taylor Wessing. (2025). "The UPC: The new forum defines its jurisdictional boundaries." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/04/the-upc ↩

50. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

51. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

52. Morrison Foerster. (2023). "The Unified Patent Court: Opting European Patents Out | Morrison Foerster." https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230217-opting-european-patents-out ↩

53. Gowling WLG. (2022). "Just how far can the UPC reach?" https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2022/how-far-can-the-upc-reach ↩

54. UPC.law. (2025). "2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf." https://upc.law/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf ↩

55. Unified Patent Court. (2025). "20368_2025 Decision final 14082025_signed all.pdf." 2025%20Decision%20final%2014082025_signed%20all.pdf">https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/20368_2025%20Decision%20final%2014082025_signed%20all.pdf ↩

56. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

57. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

58. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩

59. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

60. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

61. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

62. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

63. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

64. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 53 – Means of evidence." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_53.html ↩

65. Unified Patent Court. (2025). "Consolidated Rules of Procedure UPC_EN." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/Consolidated%20Rules%20of%20Procedure%20UPC_EN.pdf ↩

66. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 53 – Means of evidence." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_53.html ↩

67. CommentedUPC. (2025). "UPC RoP | Rule 170 - Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence." https://commentedupc.com/rules-of-procedure/rule-170/ ↩

68. CommentedUPC. (2025). "UPC RoP | Rule 170 - Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence." https://commentedupc.com/rules-of-procedure/rule-170/ ↩

69. CommentedUPC. (2025). "UPC RoP | Rule 170 - Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence." https://commentedupc.com/rules-of-procedure/rule-170/ ↩

70. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

71. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 53 – Means of evidence." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_53.html ↩

72. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

73. Noerr. (2023). "Similar, yet Different – the Rendering of Evidence Before the UPC." https://www.noerr.com/en/insights/similar-yet-different-the-rendering-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

74. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

75. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

76. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

77. The Sedona Conference. (2023). "Framework for Analysis of European Unified Patent Court." The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 24, May 2023. ↩

78. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 53 – Means of evidence." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_53.html ↩

79. CommentedUPC. (2025). "UPC RoP | Rule 170 - Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence." https://commentedupc.com/rules-of-procedure/rule-170/ ↩

80. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

81. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 15 – Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_15.html ↩

82. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

83. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

84. Managing Intellectual Property. (2024). "UPC breaks new ground with expert witness examination | Managing Intellectual Property." https://www.managingip.com/article/2ecqab4o51yzb8i68e1og/sponsored-content/upc-breaks-new-ground-with-expert-witness-examination ↩

85. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

86. European Patent Office. (2022). "G. Law of evidence." Case Law of the Boards of Appeal. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_iii_g.html ↩

87. Taylor Wessing. (2025). "The UPC: The new forum defines its jurisdictional boundaries." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/04/the-upc ↩

88. Noerr. (2023). "Similar, yet Different – the Rendering of Evidence Before the UPC." https://www.noerr.com/en/insights/similar-yet-different-the-rendering-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

89. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

90. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

91. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

92. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

93. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

94. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩

95. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

96. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

97. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: Oral procedure." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/oral-procedure ↩

98. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 15 – Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_15.html ↩

99. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

100. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

101. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

102. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩

103. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

104. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Fees | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/court-fees ↩

105. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Court Fees | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/court-fees ↩

106. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Recoverable Costs | Unified Patent Court." https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/recoverable-costs ↩

107. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

108. Morrison Foerster. (2023). "The Unified Patent Court: Opting European Patents Out | Morrison Foerster." https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230217-opting-european-patents-out ↩

109. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩

110. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

111. Paustian. (2024). "The Technically Qualified Judges at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)." https://www.paustian.de/the-technically-qualified-judges-at-the-upc/ ↩

112. European Patent Office. (2022). "Article 15 – Eligibility criteria for the appointment of judges." https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/upca_15.html ↩

113. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

114. JUVE Patent. (2023). "Evidence, experts and witnesses at the UPC." https://www.juve-patent.com/sponsored/simmons-simmons-llp/evidence-experts-and-witnesses-at-the-upc/ ↩

115. Mewburn Ellis. (2024). "UPC Weekly - Should we stay or should we go on?" https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/should-we-stay-or-should-we-go-on ↩

116. Taylor Wessing. (2023). "Means of evidence before the UPC." https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2023/02/means-of-evidence-before-the-upc ↩

117. FTI Consulting. (2024). "Damage Calculation in Disputes at the Unified Patent Court." https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/articles/damage-calculation-disputes-unified-patent-court ↩

118. FTI Consulting. (2024). "Damage Calculation in Disputes at the Unified Patent Court." https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/articles/damage-calculation-disputes-unified-patent-court ↩

119. Finnegan. (2024). "Opt-Out Strategy Considerations After Ruling in UPC Appeal." https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/opt-out-strategy-considerations-after-ruling-in-upc-appeal.html ↩

120. Mewburn Ellis. (2024). "UPC Weekly - Should we stay or should we go on?" https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/should-we-stay-or-should-we-go-on ↩

121. Mondaq. (2024). "UPC First FRAND Judgment Results In Injunction Against OPPO." https://www.mondaq.com/uk/patent/1550874/upc-first-frand-judgment-results-in-injunction-against-oppo ↩

122. Lexology. (2024). "Standard Essential Patents in the Unified Patent Court." https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ad61ba7-ffa6-4c23-b362-086748065b18 ↩

123. SSRN. (2024). Bonadio and Contardi. "The Unified Patent Court and Standard Essential Patents." European Intellectual Property Review (forthcoming September 2024). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4867647 ↩

124. Mondaq. (2024). "UPC First FRAND Judgment Results In Injunction Against OPPO." https://www.mondaq.com/uk/patent/1550874/upc-first-frand-judgment-results-in-injunction-against-oppo ↩

125. Managing Intellectual Property. (2024). "UPC breaks new ground with expert witness examination | Managing Intellectual Property." https://www.managingip.com/article/2ecqab4o51yzb8i68e1og/sponsored-content/upc-breaks-new-ground-with-expert-witness-examination ↩

126. UPC.law. (2025). "2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf." https://upc.law/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-11-LD-Mannheim_UPC_CFI_159-2024_Decision.pdf ↩

127. Morrison Foerster. (2023). "The Unified Patent Court: Opting European Patents Out | Morrison Foerster." https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230217-opting-european-patents-out ↩

128. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions: The UPC and its judges." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/upc-and-its-judges ↩

129. Unified Patent Court. (2023). "Frequently Asked Questions Jurisdiction of the UPC." https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/faq/jurisdiction-upc ↩