“Only a truly European UPC is attractive in the long term”

It was only a matter of time before the dominance of German judges and divisions at the UPC became a problem. Even before the court opened its doors, market participants from other countries expressed concerns that this would result in a German court with Europe-wide jurisdiction rather than the originally planned European system.

The latest figures have fuelled these concerns: according to recent statistics from the UPC, 260 of the 370 new lawsuits filed between June and December 2025 were filed at German divisions alone. The caseload has grown so quickly that the court felt compelled to open new panels of judges in both Munich and Düsseldorf. Almost all of the 18 legally qualified UPC judges of German origin work full-time at the UPC.

So far, so predictable

None of this is surprising, as the UPC divisions in Germany have developed out of a traditionally strong patent litigation market. Despite the fact that case numbers at German patent courts have been falling for years, proceedings in Germany have recently remained well above those of other European courts.

“Countries could face the loss of highly specialized litigation firms”

In addition, German locations – above all Düsseldorf and Munich – have always worked hard on recruiting and developing specialised patent judges. This tradition has ensured a great deal of experience among the judiciary and, as a result, a high level of trust on the part of companies. So it is no wonder that they also prefer to argue on familiar ground at the UPC.

Change needs time

The UPC’s Advisory Committee has now asked stakeholders whether German dominance is a problem. If the answer was in the affirmative, the panel asked for suggestions on how a more balanced distribution of cases could be ensured in future. Some of these are currently the subject of much discussion, not least in an open letter from Bardehle Pagenberg.

As the UPC has developed and national patent cases have dropped, representation at the pan-European court has concentrated among only a few law firms. Most of them are German or German patent teams of international law firms. Even in cases filed at divisions in other countries, German teams are often in the lead or involved in a coordinating capacity.

If this continues, many law firms will see a further decrease in business. Subsequently, countries may face a loss of highly specialised litigation firms over time. This is especially likely when national proceedings dwindle even more after the transition period.

But are regulatory measures the way to change this? Not likely. They are a double-edged sword and could in some cases even undermine the success of the court. There is not one single measure that will solve the problem. And the UPC certainly cannot solve it by regulation alone. There are many underlying causes for the current situation. These range from different traditions and cultures within the judiciary to long-established connections of clients with certain law firms.

Above all, a more balanced distribution of the work load at the UPC will take time.

Something is happening

On closer inspection, it becomes clear that there has already been some movement at the UPC in recent months.

“The UPC has now appointed a large number of non-German candidates”

One specific measure of the court is already having an effect, namely the fact that international judges on the panels are now generally judge rapporteurs. This gives these judges more visibility, as the example of András Kupecz and Rute Lopes show. Furthermore, the judges’ panels at the Court of Appeal are already very international.

In the latest recruitment rounds the UPC also appointed a large number of non-German candidates. Of the 53 legally qualified judges at the UPC, 35 are not from Germany. In addition, many non-German judges have recently increased their working hours to some extent, so that the proportion of UPC work among all legally qualified judges is around 80%, according to JUVE Patent research.

A closer look also reveals that other divisions have recently attracted more cases. The Hague, for example, saw 46 new cases in the second half of 2025, significantly more than Hamburg.

So, something is happening — albeit slowly.

Judges could do more

Further steps could lead towards a more balanced distribution, but without dictates from above. This would only lead to potential users losing confidence in the UPC and, in the worst case, staying away altogether. The question is therefore rather how to raise the profile of divisions outside Germany and strengthen confidence in the jurisdiction there. There are already a number of proposals on the table.

On the one hand, less well-known judges could boost their visibility through greater participation at conferences. Many are still reluctant to do so, possibly because their self-image of independence requires them to maintain a certain distance to the patent community.

“The system is likely to self-regulate over time”

At the same time, the system is also likely to self-regulate over time. If, for example, many cases are concentrated in just a few divisions, this will inevitably lead to longer proceedings. This in turn could lead to claimants going elsewhere in order to obtain quicker judgments.

If the UPC takes countermeasures, as it has recently done in Düsseldorf and Munich, by introducting new panels at the local divisions, this will also increase the uncertainty for claimants as to which panel will hear their case. This reduces the predictability of forum shopping.

Furthermore, changes will come from inside the law firms. The current situation with only a few law firms taking the lead at the UPC is not set in stone. The patent community has never seen so many moves across the board as in the last two years. Teams will likely mix even more in future. New alliances will form. Partners will move, taking their clients with them. They may open up to new opportunities in different venues than before. Already, several international law firms promote fully integrated teams with lawyers from offices all over Europe are working together on UPC cases.

For all or for none

The biggest problem for the development of the UPC, however, is that the court has not grown territorially since Romania joined in September 2024. Six signatory states have not yet ratified the agreement, including Ireland and Hungary. The three EU member states Spain, Poland and Croatia are not yet candidates.

It is quite possible that concerns about German dominance are also contributing to this hesitancy. Therefore, the current discussion is right and necessary for finding ways and means to help other divisions attract more work. After all, the UPC will only really be a success story if claimants have confidence in all local divisions.