{"id":2182,"date":"2026-09-23T20:16:31","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T20:16:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leca-sevestre.com\/?p=2182"},"modified":"2026-09-23T22:02:55","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T22:02:55","slug":"upc-revocation-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leca-sevestre.com\/it\/upc-revocation-action\/","title":{"rendered":"UPC Litigometer: Patent revocation actions statistics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Three years after the Unified Patent Court<\/a> (UPC) became operational, on 1 June 2023 pursuant to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) of 19 February 2013, its case law has grown substantial enough for a first empirical assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That assessment is the starting point of the UPC Litigometer<\/strong>, a periodic series decoding trends at the UPC through statistics drawn from its published case law. This first instalment focuses on standalone revocation actions, provided for by Articles 32(1)(d) and 65 UPCA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article draws on three years of decisions to identify the metrics most relevant to a party assessing whether to bring, or defend, a revocation action before the UPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Why do revocation actions matter at the UPC?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Unlike a national nullity action, which affects only the national part of the patent before the court seized, a UPC revocation action allows a party to seek, in a single set of proceedings before the Central Division of the Court of First Instance, the revocation, in whole or in part, of a European patent with effect in every one of the UPC\u2019s contracting member states in which it has been validated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where the patent at stake is a European patent with unitary effect, revocation necessarily produces effect across the entire territory of the participating member states, the unitary patent being by definition a single and indivisible title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

How long does a UPC revocation action take?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A standalone revocation action before the UPC\u2019s Central Division typically runs for eight to seventeen months at first instance, averaging close to thirteen months<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This range is a direct function of the timetable imposed by the UPC\u2019s Rules of Procedure (RoP).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the statement for revocation has been served, the defendant has one month to raise a preliminary objection, for instance as to the Court\u2019s jurisdiction or the competence of the division seized, and two months from service to lodge a defence to revocation. That defence may itself incorporate an application to amend the patent and a counterclaim for infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claimant then has two months to file a reply, and a further month is available for a rejoinder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The written procedure is followed by an interim procedure. During this phase, the judge-rapporteur holds any interim conference needed to identify the issues genuinely in dispute, rules on requests for evidence, and fixes the date of the oral hearing. That hearing is, as a rule, concluded within a single day with a written decision to follow within approximately six weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Who litigates in UPC revocation proceedings?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A review of the revocation decisions rendered by the Central Division since the UPC\u2019s opening confirms that the Court has, in practice, become a genuinely international forum<\/strong>, and not merely a European one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of the entities identified across the decisions reviewed, US parties are the single most represented nationality, accounting for 21.6% of all entities, ahead of Germany (17.6%), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (7.8% each), and China and France (5.9% each).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Austria, South Korea, Denmark and Finland each represent 3.9% of entities, while Belgium, New Zealand, Canada, India, Italy, Cyprus, Switzerland, Spain and Poland each account for 2.0%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taken together, parties domiciled in Europe, whether in a UPC contracting member state or not, account for close to 63% of all entities identified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nationality and domicile of the parties bear directly on several procedural questions, and most notably the availability of an application for security for costs against a claimant with no establishment within a contracting member state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Where are revocation actions heard? Paris, Munich and Milan<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In principle, revocation actions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Division of the UPC’s Court of First Instance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the Milan section opened on 27 June 2024, replacing the competences originally earmarked for London, the Central Division has comprised its seat in Paris (Article 7(2) UPCA) and two further sections, in Munich and Milan, each allocated by technology field under Annex II to the UPC Agreement, as amended by the Administrative Committee’s decision of 26 June 2023:<\/p>\n\n\n\n