The price war for UPC work

Many law firms are now pursuing UPC work with highly competitive prices. This is according to lawyers from firms of all sizes and tiers in the new JUVE Patent UPC ranking. But what constitutes a competitive rate in this context?

Cost breakdown of UPC proceedings

When calculating the cost of proceedings through to first-instance judgment, including counterclaims for revocation, there is a clear distinction between SEP and non-SEP cases. The work involved in FRAND aspects depends less on whether it is a UPC or national procedure, and more on the client’s specific requirements. However, this additional effort significantly impacts overall costs.

Some firms are entering the market with fees of €300,000 for first-instance judgments including revocation claims in non-SEP proceedings. According to JUVE Patent research, patent practices of different sizes and structures view this figure as both profitable and reasonable.

Some firms consider €300,000 to be aggressively low. However, JUVE Patent research suggests this figure represents an entry-level price point. Even firms typically commanding higher fees acknowledge this rate could work for technically straightforward cases with minimal additional proceedings. These firms generally prefer budgets exceeding €400,000, ideally between €500,000 and €800,000.

There are occasional mentions of offers below £200,000, though these are rare.

While there is no theoretical upper limit, JUVE Patent research shows most firms operate with pre-agreed budgets. Medium-sized clients and occasional litigants particularly favour fixed-fee arrangements. The notion that some clients will pay any price to achieve their goals is unfounded.

Most companies using UPC proceedings as part of their global litigation strategy recognise they can secure faster, more cost-effective judgments at the UPC compared to US proceedings. This partly explains why US teams struggle to coordinate UPC proceedings — clients are reluctant to pay the high hourly rates.

Firms must either stick to their budgets, which research indicates they usually do, or justify additional costs to their clients.

What drives the wide range in budgets?

JUVE Patent research identifies communication as a primary cost driver. This is unsurprising, as coordination has long been crucial for patent litigation firms handling pan-European proceedings.

The second major factor is case complexity — specifically, how thoroughly the patent dispute needs to be fought. This depends not only on the complexity of the technology itself but primarily on the client’s strategy.

Team composition and firm structure are obvious cost factors. This is clearly reflected in both JUVE Patent’s UPC ranking 2026 and coverage of current cases. Many clients favour compact teams. Nationally organised teams — whether in independent firms or international practices — have become the standard for UPC representation.

Clients only opt for international teams when cases have genuine cross-border aspects and such a setup offers clear advantages. The belief that every UPC case requires an international team has now become outdated.