UPC opt-out FAQs

This guide was last updated 01 June 2023.

The opt-out is a means by which a patent owner can remove European patents and European patent applications from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The default position is that all European patent applications and European patents are subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC, unless an opt-out is filed. The opt-out ensures that the litigation options remain the same.

The opt-out is related to the UPC. It is not relevant for unitary patents. Unitary patents (UPs) are always subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC and cannot be opted out.

The UPC shares jurisdiction of a “non opted-out” European patent and any associated SPC(s) with the national courts. In practice this means that enforcement or third party actions can take place in the UPC or one or more national courts.

The opt-out will be available until the end of the “transitional period”, provided that there is no ongoing UPC litigation when the opt-out is filed.

The opt-out, once registered by the UPC Registry, will be effective for the lifetime of the European patent/patent application. An exception to this will be if the patent owner subsequently withdraws the opt-out or if a request for unitary effect is filed within one month of grant of an opted-out European patent application. As noted above, unitary patents cannot be opted-out, they are always subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC.

Yes. If you file an opt-out and later change your mind, then you can withdraw the opt-out in order to restore the shared jurisdiction of the UPC and national courts. This option is, however, only available once. Withdrawal of the opt-out is permanent, it is not possible to file a second opt-out. A withdrawal is also not available if an action has been launched in the national courts.

Opt-out applications are submitted to the UPC Registry via an online case management system. There is no official fee.

Only the “true” proprietor(s) or applicant(s) is entitled to opt-out and the European representative submitting the opt-out application is required to complete a declaration setting out the name and address of the “true” proprietor(s) or applicant(s) for each designated state and stating that they are entitled to act on behalf of the “true” proprietor(s)/applicant(s). The “true” proprietor(s)/applicant(s) may not be the owner(s) registered before the EPO or national patent office(s) meaning that the preparation of a valid declaration will be key for the validity of any opt-out.

An opt-out can be challenged by an action filed at the UPC and if invalid, the patent will be subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC. An opt-out can be corrected but any correction will only be effective from the date the correction is accepted by the UPC Registry. It does not have retroactive effect.

In view of this, it is advisable to carefully review the ownership of European patent(s)/application(s) to be opted-out, including all designated states.

Licensees are not able to request an opt-out. If you are a licensee, exclusive or otherwise, and have a preference for the opt-out, this should be discussed with the patent owner. Licence agreements should also be reviewed for handling of the opt-out.

Co-owners must opt-out in agreement. It is not possible to divide a bundle of national rights from a granted European patent if they are owned by different entities, for example, opting out certain members of the bundle.

An supplementary protection certificate (SPC) must “follow” the EP patent on which it is based. This means that if the European patent is opted out, the SPC must also be opted out. If the SPC and patent are owned by different entities, then all owners must opt out in agreement. The opt-out request must be filed setting out the name and address of the SPC owner.

There are, unsurprisingly, many advantages and disadvantages to the new system and the opt-out decision is likely to need a case-by-case analysis balancing a range of factors.

One of the key factors is the risk of central revocation in the new and therefore untested court. For this reason alone, many patent owners are expected to opt out their entire portfolio – at least in the initial few years of the system coming into effect. Should central action in the UPC be desired in future, the opt-out could then be withdrawn and suitable action taken, provided that there is no ongoing national litigation. However, the risk of opting everything out is that competitors could initiate national litigation and “lock” patents out that may have been suited to UPC enforcement. Opting everything out will also mean that there is limited opportunity for UPC case law to be influenced.

Another factor to consider is the shared jurisdiction between the UPC and national courts for non opted-out EP patents. This shared jurisdiction allows the proprietor to choose where to bring an action; assuming of course that proceedings have not already been started in the UPC.

One option to consider is the use of divisional applications and/or related cases to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new system. Another option is to have co-existing national and European patents (provided double patenting provisions are complied with).

The UK withdrew its ratification of the UPC Agreement and its involvement in the UPC and UP. This means that nothing changes for EP patents validated in the UK (the UK part of the European patent “bundle”). The UK courts continue to have jurisdiction for any enforcement or third party action. UK-based European patent attorneys are, however, able to represent clients in the UPC, file opt-out applications and provide advice on the new system.