UK to Back Out of the UPC

March 04, 2020
Post by Julie L. Spieker


Last year, this blog brought news of the impending Brexit vote and the supposed impact of Brexit on intellectual property laws in the UK. Brexit was thought to have largely no effect on patent law because European and UK patents are governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC) which is a non-EU agreement. Further, the European Patent Office which overseas European patent prosecution is a non-EU body. However, a UK government cabinet official recently announced a decision to back out of Europe’s Unified Patent Court, which may have long-lasting effects.


The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a proposed common patent court open to contracting member states of the EU to hear cases regarding infringement and revocation proceedings with a single court ruling being directly applicable throughout the member states. This court was established by the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, an intergovernmental treaty, signed in 2013 by 25 of the EU states. The UPC applies EU law and is bound by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) like any other national court. Even with Brexit, the thought was that the UK would still remain a part of the UPC while not a part of Europe. Boris Johnson (somewhat ironically) as foreign secretary under former prime minister Theresa May, ratified the UPC agreement in 2017. And as recently as November 2019 a Minister of Universities, Science, Research and Innovation publicly confirmed the UK’s commitment to harmonizing intellectual property policy. London was due to be the location of one of three main patent courts and host the UPC’s pharmaceutical division.

However, this announcement does not come as a total surprise. Participating in the UPC system would be participating in a court system that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU and is inconsistent with the aims of Brexit, which is to restore independence from the EU.

Updates will be provided with regard to the future of the UPC and how the remaining member countries move forward.

Julie Spieker is a patent attorney in the Biotechnology & Chemical and Mechanical & Electrical Patent Practice Groups at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit or contact Julie directly at

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.