Breaking: UPC agrees initial central division split

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Breaking: UPC agrees initial central division split

EuropeNASA

Paris and Munich will share London’s lot of UPC central division cases when the court opens on June 1, but there is still no news on Milan

Cases before the Unified Patent Court’s central division will be split between Paris and Munich when the court first opens on June 1, it was announced today, May 16.

The UPC administrative committee has yet to make a final decision on whether Milan will eventually host the third central division seat that was originally assigned to London.

The UK withdrew from the UPC project in 2020, leaving the question of which country would be assigned the third central seat.

Milan has since been confirmed as the only contender, but German, French, and Italian officials are yet to agree on how to divide cases.

Under the UPC Agreement, disputes filed at the central division would have been split between the different countries based on the scope of the patent in question.

Disputes over patents concerning human necessities, chemistry, and metallurgy would have been heard in London.

According to today’s announcement, the Presidium of the UPC, a group of senior judges and the court’s registrar, agreed on May 8 to divide those cases between Paris and Munich initially.

From June 1, disputes falling under human necessities will be heard in Paris while chemistry and metallurgy matters will be assigned to Munich.

Italian politicians have lobbied for a Milan central division to hear all of those disputes. The path looked clear when the Netherlands withdrew its candidacy earlier this year.

But negotiations have since hit a snag.

In February, it emerged that French officials wanted the Paris division to hear any cases involving pharmaceutical patents for which a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is in effect.

That solution would leave the Milan division with a much less significant share of the caseload than Italian lawyers had originally hoped for.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article