Interview

Werner Richter: “UPC brings brain drain, but attracts young judges to patent law”

As the UPC increasingly woos litigants and judges alike, Germany as a patent litigation venue is changing. JUVE Patent spoke to Werner Richter, president of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, about how national courts are dealing with falling case numbers and the migration of judges to the UPC.

4 July 2025 by Konstanze Richter

Werner Richter is currently president of the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf. ©Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

JUVE Patent: The UPC has recently expanded its capacity of judges again. What does this mean for the national courts?

Werner Richter: The exodus of experienced judges has recently led to a certain brain drain. Of course, we have to compensate for this because for the foreseeable future — at least during the five-year transition phase — national litigation will continue to be of interest to many potential plaintiffs.

“Anyone seeking legal protection must find well-trained judges in both systems”

It is therefore our task to provide both branches with experienced judges. Anyone seeking legal protection must continue to find competent and well-trained judges in both systems. We must not neglect either branch.

How do you ensure this despite the many departures of judges to the UPC?

The number of new national patent actions at almost all regional courts has fallen significantly again, which will also have a long-term effect on appeal proceedings. This leads to a concentration of capacities on fewer chambers and senates.

For example, we already closed one of the two patent senates at the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court last year. We were therefore able to fill the remaining 2nd Senate, which now concentrates almost exclusively on patent disputes, with experienced judges — even though Jule Schumacher will also take up a full-time position at the UPC in September.

At Düsseldorf Regional Court, no new cases will be assigned to Civil Chamber 4c, whose presiding judge Sabine Klepsch has moved to the UPC full-time. The chamber is working through the remaining portfolio of pending cases and will close in the long term.

The brain drain has particularly affected Düsseldorf. How can the location remain attractive for patent disputes?

Indeed, seven of the 44 legally qualified judges at the UPC currently come from Düsseldorf alone. This shows how attractive the patent training is at our location.

“Seven UPC judges are from Düsseldorf, our patent training is attractive”

We have been focussing on targeted training in this specialist area for years and continue to promote it among the ranks of judges and prospective lawyers. Anyone interested in this field must have an affinity for technology, be open to IT especially, and be prepared to tackle particularly tough legal challenges. A strong understanding of legal methodology is also required. When recruiting, it helps that we have a faculty at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf that is strongly characterised by business law.

Ultimately, patent law as a whole is becoming more attractive again thanks to the UPC. For many talented young judges, the new court is an incentive to choose the faculty because it also provides opportunities to work at European level long-term.

How does the UPC influence the quality of national jurisprudence in patent law?

Competition is conducive to quality, as we can learn from each other. It might be advantageous, for example, to transfer certain UPC procedures to national courts in the future — such as a fixed procedural calendar.

“Competition is conducive to quality”

In addition, the various locations should harmonise their case law to a greater extent. I would like to see more dialogue here, both between the international locations of the UPC themselves and between UPC local chambers and national courts.

Could the UPC also be a role model for national courts in terms of service and transparency?

In terms of service, I don’t really see the national courts lagging behind the UPC. However, the final report of the Reform Commission on the “Civil Procedure of the Future” published in January provides some important impetus for possible improvements. This includes, for example, suggestions for greater digitalisation and acceleration of civil proceedings.

In addition to swift and high-quality decisions, the predictability of the course of proceedings plays a particularly important role for the parties. National courts could make improvements here. For example, in addition to the strict time limit regime of the UPC, the mandatory organisation hearing for the Commercial Court could also serve as a model for national civil chambers in terms of the duration of proceedings.

“National courts could improve predictability of hearings”

As far as the transparency of case law is concerned, national patent courts already publish key judgments. According to the reform plans, this quota is to be expanded. However, the courts are bound by strict data and business secrecy protection, which makes it necessary to redact certain parts of each judgment before publication.

Currently, this is still done manually and involves a great deal of effort for which there is not always sufficient capacities. Anonymisation tools are currently being developed specifically for this purpose.

In April the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court launched the Commercial Court with three senates, which hears commercial disputes of over €500,000 in M&A, corporate, construction and insurance law. What is your experience so far?

Seven cases are already pending and the first hearing in one of these cases —an M&A dispute — is scheduled for 30 September. On 11 June, the first lawsuit was filed in work contract law concerning millions of euros.

“Germany has expanded the options for commercial law disputes”

This shows that the Commercial Court has been well received. It is characterised by judges who are independent in every respect and — as with arbitration courts — highly specialised and the court is often significantly more cost-effective. As a result, Germany as a litigation venue has expanded the range of options for commercial law disputes.

As the Commercial Court is based at the Higher Regional Court at first instance and is then at the Federal Court of Justice at second instance, the regional courts are also relieved of the burden, particularly in complex commercial disputes.

Does the Commercial Court create the same staff problems at the national courts as the UPC?

So far, this has not been the case. All judges of the Commercial Court are still assigned to other senates. In the long term, there will also be similar incentives for young and prospective judges as at the UPC, namely the opportunity to work much more internationally.