Category: News

The panel “UPC and EPO Case Law: Convergence, Divergence and Practical Consequences” examined the evolving relationship between EPO opposition and appeal proceedings and UPC revocation actions.

The session was led by Dr Natalia Wegner, Partner at Carpmaels & Ransford, and Bernhard Thum, Partner at Thum & Partner. It brought together practitioner and judicial perspectives from the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.

The central point was that the UPC and the EPO are not in a hierarchy. They are independent fora that may consider the same patent, often at the same time. The practical challenge is therefore how parties, representatives and judges manage parallel proceedings with different procedural settings and developing case law.

Inventive step was at the heart of the discussion. Both the EPO and the UPC apply Article 56 EPC, but the way they structure the analysis may differ. The EPO’s problem-solution approach is built for scale: it provides a disciplined framework for examination, opposition and appeal practice across a very large number of cases. It asks parties and decision-makers to identify the closest prior art, determine the distinguishing features and technical effect, formulate the objective technical problem, and then ask whether the skilled person would — not merely could — have modified the prior art.

The UPC, by contrast, is still developing its own inventive-step methodology. The Court of Appeal has referred to realistic starting points, the claim as a whole, and the need for a pointer or motivation. This may be more flexible than the EPO’s structured sequence, but it is not unstructured. The same core discipline remains: hindsight must be avoided, and there must be a reason why the skilled person would have taken the claimed route.

The panel also highlighted added matter. In principle, both fora apply the EPO’s “gold standard” of direct and unambiguous disclosure. In practice, however, differences may emerge. The EPO is often seen as applying a strict feature-by-feature analysis, while the UPC may be more open to contextual claim interpretation, influenced by national traditions and its own developing case law.

The broader lesson was practical. Parties should not treat EPO opposition and UPC revocation proceedings as interchangeable. The same patent, prior art and claim amendments may be assessed through different procedural lenses.

The relationship between the UPC and EPO is therefore not simply one of convergence or divergence. It is a developing coexistence. For litigants, the key is to understand both systems, anticipate procedural interaction, and build strategies that reflect the specific discipline of each forum.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.

The panel “Towards Better Mutual Understanding in Global Patent Disputes” addressed one of the most sensitive questions in international patent litigation: what can courts do when proceedings in different countries begin to block, restrain or undermine each other?

The discussion brought together judicial perspectives from Europe, Brazil and China. The focus was not only on cooperation in the abstract, but on the practical problem of anti-suit injunctions, anti-anti-suit injunctions and the risk that courts become drawn into jurisdictional conflict.

A central theme was judicial modesty. In global patent disputes, no court operates in isolation. A decision in one jurisdiction may affect proceedings elsewhere, especially where injunctions, interim licences, FRAND determinations or global settlement pressure are involved. The panel therefore asked whether courts should pause before issuing orders that effectively interfere with the work of another court.

This concern is not theoretical. Large corporations can shape litigation strategy across multiple jurisdictions. As was noted in the discussion, powerful companies may “move the needle” by tryig to play countries, governments and courts against each other in order to obtain the most favourable outcome. In that environment, courts can feel overwhelmed.

The panel’s most important point was that courts should avoid becoming instruments in that strategy. Anti-suit injunctions may appear attractive in an individual case, but they can escalate quickly into a chain of retaliatory measures. Once one court blocks another, the dispute is no longer only about patents. It becomes a conflict between legal systems.

Several possible responses were discussed. These included judicial dialogue before interference, greater use of coordination mechanisms, respect for parallel proceedings, and institutional channels that allow courts to understand what is happening elsewhere before acting. International insolvency was mentioned as proof that cross-border judicial coordination is possible. The mechanism exists; the harder question is whether there is enough political and institutional will.

The strongest practical takeaway was modest but significant. The judges on the panel indicated that, in future, they would seek to avoid anti-suit orders against each other where possible and would try to talk first. That commitment to dialogue may sound simple, but in the current patent environment it matters.

The session also touched on institutional initiatives such as the UPC and the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre. These may provide useful platforms, although the deeper issue remains judicial culture: courts must be willing to act with restraint when global disputes create pressure for aggressive procedural moves.

The panel’s message was clear. Better mutual understanding is not a soft aspiration. It is a safeguard against escalation. In global patent litigation, judicial modesty may be one of the most important tools courts have to prevent parties from turning national legal systems against each other.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.

At the 14th IP and Competition Forum, the panel “FRAND, SEPs and the Economics of Litigation & Rate Setting” examined one of the most difficult questions in standard essential patent disputes: how should courts determine value when legal systems, valuation methods, timing and litigation strategies point in different directions?

The panel was moderated by Paul Brown, Partner at Hogan Lovells. Speakers included Prof Roya Ghafele, Managing Director of OxFirst, and Earl Nied, Founder of Veracity.

Prof Ghafele used the Samsung/ZTE dispute to illustrate the problem. Samsung chose the UK, while ZTE turned to Munich and China, because each party believed — correctly — that those jurisdictions would best serve its interests. Courts in different parts of the world were presented with broadly the same valuation methods, yet reached very different conclusions and substantially different monetary outcomes.

The divergence lay not only in law, but in method. The devil is in what a court admits as a comparable, what it dismisses, and how it treats the top-down approach. The UK court rejected the top-down approach on the facts before it. The Munich court, by contrast, based its analysis on top-down reasoning after treating certain comparables as distorted. This makes it difficult to say what is “right” or “wrong” in any simple sense, because consistency is lacking.

A central theme was assumptions. Lawyers often criticise economists for relying on assumptions, but the law itself is far from settled. The real issue is not whether assumptions are used, but whether they are credible, defensible and capable of being substantiated.

Earl Nied added another important dimension: timing. In his opinion, SEP licensing is often treated as if the patent landscape were fixed. It is not. New patents issue, older patents expire, essentiality is reassessed and standards evolve. A licence negotiated today may therefore concern a different set of relevant rights than a licence concluded earlier. As Nied’s analysis of the AVC/H.264 pool illustrated, a significant share of listed patent entries had expired by early 2026. Counts alone do not determine value, but they show that the SEP landscape changes over time.

‘This matters for FRAND’, so Earl Nied Expired patents may still be relevant for past sales, but future rates should reflect current rights. Historic licences may be useful evidence, but only if they still correspond to the rights, products and market conditions at issue.

Prof Ghafele also placed FRAND rate setting in a broader IP valuation framework. Accounting statements often fail to capture the value of intellectual property adequately, leaving much IP valuation “off book”. That creates shortcomings in IP management, funding and commercial strategy.

Well-explained IP valuation can help turn an IP right into an IP asset — or liability. Against that background, the FRAND debate should not be treated as a narrow fight over damages or royalty rates. It belongs in a wider discussion about how innovation is valued, managed and used for economic growth and prosperity.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.

The panel “Competition Perspectives: LNGs, Standardisation and Patent Licensing” examined the European Commission’s new guidance on Licensing Negotiation Groups, or LNGs, in the 2026 Technology Transfer Guidelines.

Moderated by Le Chen, Senior Director, IP Policy & Dispute Resolution at Xiaomi Europe, the session brought together perspectives from DG Competition, the Bundeskartellamt, BSH Hausgeräte, the Fair Standards Alliance and Nokia.

The Commission’s message was that LNGs are not intended to replace bilateral licensing, patent pools or existing FRAND mechanisms. Rather, they are one possible tool for dealing with increasingly complex technology licensing environments. As more products rely on standardised technologies, particularly in sectors such as automotive, IoT and connected devices, licensing can become fragmented, costly and difficult to manage.

The 2026 Technology Transfer Guidelines recognise that groups of implementers may, in some circumstances, jointly negotiate licences for technology rights. The potential efficiencies are clear: reduced transaction costs, better access to technical and licensing information, more predictable negotiations and improved ability to assess aggregate exposure.

At the same time, the Guidelines do not give LNGs a free pass. They identify competition-law risks and set out the conditions under which such cooperation may be assessed. These include safeguards around information exchange, governance, openness, transparency and the risk that cooperation between implementers could spill over into coordination on downstream markets.

The discussion also acknowledged reservations outside Europe. The U.S. Trade Representative’s 2026 Special 301 Report added the European Union to its Watch List and raised concerns about foreign IP protection and enforcement affecting U.S. innovators. In the SEP context, U.S. commentary has been critical of licensing negotiation groups, warning that collective negotiation by implementers may risk depressing royalty rates or weakening SEP enforcement incentives.

For implementers, LNGs may offer a more structured way to engage with fragmented SEP licensing demands. For licensors, the challenge may be to ensure that collective negotiation does not weaken incentives to invest in R&D or participate in open standards.

The broader question is whether LNGs will remain a narrow tool for specific licensing environments or become part of a wider European move toward more structured patent licensing. The answer remains open. What is clear is that the Commission is trying to provide guidance rather than impose a single model.

The panel showed that LNGs are best understood as part of a wider effort to make technology licensing more workable in complex innovation ecosystems. Their success will depend on whether they can deliver efficiency, transparency and fairness without crossing the line into unlawful coordination.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.

At the 14th IP and Competition Forum, the panel “Long-Arm Jurisdiction in Patent Disputes after BSH v. Electrolux” examined whether cross-border patent jurisdiction is becoming a tool of efficiency — or a source of new litigation pressure.

The panel was moderated by partners from DLA Piper and Freshfields. Speakers included senior in-house patent and litigation counsel from HP, Nokia, and Giesecke+Devrient.

The discussion centred on the CJEU’s judgment in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. The ruling allows an EU court, in certain circumstances, to hear infringement claims concerning foreign patents, even where validity is raised as a defence. For some, this promises efficiency. For others, it raises serious concerns about jurisdictional overreach.

The mood of the panel was strikingly sceptical. One German in-house speaker warned that German companies may now be “really punished” if the Munich court pushes long-arm jurisdiction to an extreme. The companies most likely to suffer, he suggested, are not global giants, but German mid-sized businesses facing expanded litigation pressure at home.

The Munich judges, for their part, urged market participants to give the Court some time and watch how the case law develops. That “wait and see” message, however, did not remove the concern in the room.

What made the debate particularly interesting was that neither implementers nor patent owners seemed enthusiastic about the development. For once, the technology sector seemed broadly aligned.

If a company wants truly transnational patent litigation, the obvious forum is the UPC. Against that background, using national German courts to reach across borders may look less like efficient case management and more like judicial overreach.

That makes the development something of a slap in the face for those who expected Munich’s approach to be welcomed as a patent-owner-friendly move. The panel suggested the opposite: even patent owners may hesitate if the result is greater uncertainty, more procedural complexity, and a jurisdictional race that no one fully controls.

The broader question after BSH v. Electrolux is therefore not simply whether courts can hear more cross-border patent disputes. It is whether they should — and whether national courts are the right place to do so when the UPC already offers a transnational framework.

The panel showed that long-arm jurisdiction is no longer a technical procedural issue. It has become a strategic question about forum choice, litigation pressure, and the proper limits of national courts in global patent disputes.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.

The RPX session “NPEs and Litigation Finance are Coming to Europe. Are you prepared?” asked a direct question. The answer, broadly, was: not yet.

Moderated by Dr Oliver Scherenberg, Head of RPX Europe, the panel brought together perspectives from litigation finance, operating companies, and private practice. Speakers included senior representatives from Parabellum, Pretium, Sonos, HP, and Kather Augenstein.

The discussion made clear that Europe is becoming a more attractive forum for non-practising entities and litigation funders. The UPC, Germany’s fast-moving patent courts, and the availability of powerful remedies all contribute to a litigation environment that can create pressure on defendants.

Yet funders emphasised that not every patent dispute is financeable. Patent quality remains the primary filter. Funders look closely at validity, infringement, technology area, damages potential and procedural strategy. According to the discussion, around 97% of opportunities reviewed are turned down. But the 3% that proceed are selected with precision.

That selectivity matters. When a funder backs a case, defendants should not assume it is speculative. It may indicate that the patents, facts and litigation strategy have already passed a demanding commercial and legal screen.

Germany was singled out as particularly important. As one speaker put it: “When it’s in Germany, the timeline is so fast. That is really a lot of pressure.” Speed can be a tactical advantage for claimants and a serious challenge for defendants, especially where internal decision-making, technical analysis and settlement strategy must move quickly.

Provenance also matters. Patents originating from operating companies with strong portfolios are often viewed as more credible than patents assembled purely for litigation. That provides a practical lesson for rights holders: how a portfolio is built, documented and presented can affect its litigation value.

For operating companies, the message was equally practical. NPE and litigation finance activity in Europe should not be treated as a distant U.S.-style phenomenon. It is already becoming part of the European patent landscape.

The panel’s warning was clear: companies need to understand their exposure, assess portfolio risk, prepare defence strategies and take litigation finance seriously. NPEs and funders are coming to Europe. The question is whether Europe’s technology companies are prepared.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.