Early data from the Unified Patent Court suggests some emerging trends – and raises some interesting questions. It shows that parties are leaning heavily on multi-firm, multi-jurisdictional, and multidisciplinary representation – an approach never seen before on this scale in a single jurisdiction. But do these diverse teams actually win more? Or is this early strategy more about covering bases in an untested court system than delivering clear-cut results? As the UPC begins to shape its own precedents, understanding how legal teams are being assembled gives us insight into where litigation strategy is heading next.
A complex court calls for complex teams
The UPC is new. Its rules and judges are drawn from across Europe, but no two divisions operate exactly the same way. While the UPC is built on the framework of the European Patent Convention (EPC), many of the judges come from national courts and bring their own varied perspectives. While the law is in flux and multiple jurisdictional influences play a role in shaping the UPC, parties are understandably erring on the side of caution – and collaboration. That may explain why the majority of teams in our data were cross-jurisdictional (over 92%) and multi-firm (almost 77%). Litigants are combining legal minds from across jurisdictions and firms, perhaps not just for language or logistics, but to ensure a broader strategic lens. When you’re presenting a case to a panel of judges from different legal cultures, it may help to have team members who reflect that diversity in thinking. Different perspectives and skillsets help probe weaknesses, test arguments against multiple interpretations, and ultimately build stronger cases.
Does diversity = victory? Not yet conclusive.
More diverse teams are known to outperform less diverse teams. However, is this true of cross-firm and cross-jurisdictional diversity? Our data revealed that just over half of teams involved in UPC cases to date included both technically and legally qualified patent attorneys and specialist legally qualified attorneys-at-law and solicitors. That kind of multidisciplinary approach seems intuitively right: patent attorneys bring technical depth and procedural EPO experience bolstered by their work on post-grant inter partes proceedings such as oppositions, while attorneys-at-law and solicitors compliment these skills with court process experience and dispute resolution strategy. Interestingly, teams with both lawyers and patent attorneys won just over half of the time (56.25%) when facing teams without patent attorneys. That suggests diverse teams have an edge, so it’s a trend to watch. At this early stage, it may say more about prudent preparation than competitive advantage. Perhaps cross-firm collaboration can keep all the team on their A-game. There are many possible explanations. The real test will come once the UPC settles into its rhythm. If multidisciplinary teams continue to outperform over time, it may prove to be more than just early-court caution and instead a recipe for success, long-term.
Patent attorneys at the UPC
Unlike many national court advocates, patent attorneys combine deep technical expertise with practical procedural fluency. With their experience in opposition and appeal proceedings providing skills and experience transferrable to the UPC, it makes them uniquely placed to support or lead UPC litigation – especially where technical credibility, deep knowledge of the patent file history, or well-honed technically-astute advocacy is central to the dispute, or where parallel EPO opposition proceedings are present.
Will these trends last?
Right now, diversity appears to be the default. But that may change. As UPC jurisprudence develops and national nuances fade, parties may lean more heavily on attorneys-at-law, solicitors or patent attorneys that establish themselves as credible and successful UPC specialists, without worrying about assembling cross-border coalitions for every case. The early multi-firm, multi-jurisdiction model may give way to a new class of UPC-specific litigation teams – only time can tell.
For now, though, the playbook is clear: when in doubt, bring a broader bench.
At Kilburn & Strode, we see collaboration as essential to a winning strategy at the UPC. As Europe’s leading premium IP firm focused on helping companies solve their biggest IP problems, we’re well placed to assemble those teams and provide our unique commercial approach to help companies navigate the evolving UPC and European IP landscape.