As the UPC becomes more active, questions are emerging around its jurisdictional reach—particularly regarding its influence on companies and enforcement strategies in non-UPC countries like the UK and Spain. This session explores how far UPC decisions can stretch, and what it means for rights holders and litigants operating beyond its formal borders.

• Examine the potential extraterritorial effect of UPC decisions on non participating states. • Hear perspectives from UK, Spanish, and international counsel on the limits and risks of UPC long-arm jurisdiction.
• Explore defensive and offensive strategies for companies based in or targeting non-UPC jurisdictions.

The UPC is not just a litigation forum—it is also proving to be a strategic lever for in house counsel seeking faster resolutions, stronger negotiating positions, and cost effective enforcement. This session will examine how companies are recalibrating their patent prosecution and litigation strategies to take advantage of the UPC’s tight timelines, wide territorial scope, and growing body of case law on injunctions and costs.

• Explore how the mere filing of UPC cases—such as Ocado’s triple-action move against Autostore—can accelerate settlements in long-running, multi jurisdictional disputes.

• Understand how the UPC’s efficiency and Europe-wide reach heighten pressure on implementers, making the threat of an injunction a powerful driver of licensing outcomes.

• Examine how the UPC’s approach to proportionate injunctions and litigation cost allocation (e.g., Milan LD rulings) are influencing early settlement calculus and portfolio management.

• Discuss how in-house teams are adapting prosecution strategies—such as timing of unitary effect requests—to align with their risk tolerance and enforcement goals.

As the UPC continues to take shape through early rulings, procedural clarifications, and appeals, legal teams across Europe are watching closely to understand how this new venue is redefining enforcement strategy. This session offers a practical review of the key decisions to date, considers procedural and jurisdictional trends, and examines the strategic calculus of litigating in the UPC versus national courts.

• Review recent UPC case law and appeals to understand emerging judicial approaches and procedural norms:
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (2025)
- Mul-T-Lock v IMC Créations (2025)
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (2025)
• Examine strategic decision-making: when and why companies are choosing the UPC over national courts. Compare early UPC developments to UK patent litigation to identify points of convergence and divergence.

As the UPC continues to take shape through early rulings, procedural clarifications, and appeals, legal teams across Europe are watching closely to understand how this new venue is redefining enforcement strategy. This session offers a practical review of the key decisions to date, considers procedural and jurisdictional trends, and examines the strategic calculus of litigating in the UPC versus national courts.

• Review recent UPC case law and appeals to understand emerging judicial approaches and procedural norms:
- Edwards Lifesciences v Meril (2025)
- Mul-T-Lock v IMC Créations (2025)
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio Technology (2025)
• Examine strategic decision-making: when and why companies are choosing the UPC over national courts. Compare early UPC developments to UK patent litigation to identify points of convergence and divergence.

With the UPC issuing an increasing number of rulings, its developing case law on injunctions is critical for shaping enforcement strategies. For IP counsel and litigators, understanding how and when the UPC is willing to grant or deny injunctions - whether preliminary or permanent - is essential for advising clients, managing litigation risk, and crafting effective pan-European strategies.

• Review Grundfos v. Canned Motor Pump (Düsseldorf LD), where the court issued a permanent injunction despite ongoing licensing talks and clarified that lack of inventive step must be explicitly argued - not merely referenced via prior art.
• Analyse Boehringer v. Zentiva (Lisbon LD), in which the court denied provisional measures due to lack of proof of imminent infringement, offering key insights into evidentiary thresholds at the UPC.
• Understand the Milan LD’s approach to litigation costs in Ericsson v. Digital River and Oerlikon v. Bhagat, highlighting how procedural context and case complexity affect fee shifting.
• Discuss how this growing body of UPC injunction case law is influencing strategic decision-making across industries and jurisdictions.