“UPC pulls ripcord on CMS in time, but proximity to the EPO is questionable”

The announcement came as a surprise, but it came at the right time. Last Friday, the Unified Patent Court announced that it was ditching the old CMS and introducing a new one. This new system would be a joint project with the EPO, implemented by mid-2025.

Diplomatically and with little fanfare, the press release on the UPC’s website says, “Based on the experience during its first year of operation, the court has decided to enter into an enhanced cooperation with the EPO regarding IT related matters. The first project will be to develop a case management system.”

Bold decision

According to UPC circles, this does not mean an overhaul of the current system but an entirely new creation. The UPC has not yet confirmed this, but such a liberating move would be logical and timely.

One year after its launch, many users have expressed their satisfaction with the new court – but not with the CMS. Not only lawyers and their clients but also the judges themselves have made no secret of their displeasure with the work-flow-based case management system.

Lawyers have spent hours in front of the computer uploading documents. Amid the ever rising cases, they lose track of the docket numbers as the system creates new ones for each new action – even when they belong to the same case.

“The UPC needed to find a remedy quickly to retain users’ good will”

Initially, only the authorised representatives themselves and not their employees could carry out work in the CMS. It is anyone’s guess how many expensive partner hours were billed to clients in those early days, with partners anxiously pressing the Enter key until a claim was finally submitted to the system.

That users’ disillusionment with the CMS has not morphed into fury is probably thanks to the court’s helpful staff. Not to mention the commitment of UPC judges to find pragmatic solutions. Many users recently confirmed this in discussions with JUVE Patent. Nevertheless, they emphasised that the UPC needed to find a remedy and quickly, if the court was to retain users’ good will.

That UPC officials have now responded to the criticisms is a positive development. The cooperation with the EPO will generate much goodwill in the community. After all, the EPO register is an excellent system.

“Cooperation with the EPO will generate goodwill in the community”

If the information is correct, the current CMS will be long gone by this time next year. This is probably for the best, as even emergency measures have not managed to salvage it.

Now the IT experts at the EPO have the task of incorporating the UPC’s complicated procedural rules into a new system. This second CMS must be a success.

Case processing must be clear for users and judges. The fast and user-friendly publication of new cases and decisions on the UPC website must also be guaranteed in order to meet the court’s high standards of transparency. Above all, the processing times for users must be as short as possible.

Maintaining independence

Even if many consider the EPO’s IT experts to be competent supporters of the UPC, the cooperation also has its disadvantages. The EPO and the UPC are two independent pillars of the European patent system, yet they are increasingly converging in their day-to-day work. They already cooperate in training UPC judges. In 2022, the EPO and UPC also signed an agreement on the exchange of data between the two institutions. Now the EPO is aiding the UPC with its most important IT application.

“There can be no doubts about the independence of the UPC judges”

UPC officials would be well advised to define a clear framework for cooperation with the EPO. After all, in revocation claims the UPC judges will be deciding whether the EPO has rightly granted European and Unitary Patents. There can be no doubts about the independence of the UPC judges.

Money, money, money

Furthermore, UPC officials will face questions about how many millions in taxes the current CMS has swallowed up so far. UPC states – in real terms, the taxpayers of 17 EU countries – are still paying for the court.

Nevertheless, the decision to replace the CMS is also the right one financially. In the long term, the complex system would have driven up legal fees and made the UPC a costly venue. Litigation would have become prohibitively expensive, especially for SMEs – precisely those companies to which the UPC states had promised affordable proceedings.