On 19 February 2026, I had the honour and privilege of being invited by the European Commission to discuss the UP and the UPC with some of Europe’s leading patent practitioners. This article sets out the reflections I shared on that occasion: where the system is already delivering, where the friction points are emerging in practice, and which technical adjustments would most effectively improve usability, predictability and legitimacy.

The Court Appeal clarified that withdrawal of the opt-out is not allowed when national proceedings were commenced during the transitional period. Instead, proceedings commenced before the transitional period cannot affect the withdrawal.

The decision elaborates on the need to dismiss or stay the case due to the pending of parallel proceedings between affiliated companies and provides a summary of the criteria to be followed in interpreting claims and assessing novelty and inventive steps.

The Court highlighted that intervention in interim proceedings is exceptional and can only be granted in presence of a legal interest of the intervener. Menarini instead had a mere de facto interest in boostering parallel proceedings in which it was a party. Its application was therefore dismissed.

By the order under discussion, the CoA overturned this decision finding that, contrary to the judgement of the CFI, the validity of the patent at issue was not established with a sufficient degree of certainty for the injunction to be issued.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the UPC stated that, in proceedings that do not involve technical issues, the Court of Appeal can decide without technically qualified judges.

The CD ordered the claimant in a revocation action to pay a security of € 300,000 for the defendant’s legal costs, based on its financial position and the alleged difficulties in enforcing a cost decision in the UK.