Portugal has a local division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Lisbon. Further details of its location, contact details, and opening hours can be found on the UPC website. The Mediation and Arbitration Centre is also located at the same premises.

Official holidays in Portugal currently include 1 January, Good Friday, Easter, 25 April, 1 May, 10 June, Corpus Christi, 15 August, 5 October, 1 November, 1 December, 8 December, 25 December. It is not uncommon for the Portuguese government to announce long weekends.

The Lisbon Local Division of the UPC was assigned a chairperson, Rute Lopes, who currently presides over the local division. She obtained her law degree in 1994 and has been a judge since 1997.

From 2009 to 2014, Rute Lopes was a judge of the Commercial Court with jurisdiction over IP cases, before becoming head of the Court of North Lisbon from 2014 to 2020. From 2020 to 2022, Rute Lopes was a judge of the IP Court (a specialised first-instance court) with national jurisdiction over IP matters. During this period, she heard patent cases (particularly in the context of the special regime under Law 62/2011 of 12 December).

Since September 2022, Rute Lopes has been a judge at the Lisbon Court of Appeal (second instance), including in the IP and competition division. She also attended seminars and training at the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), including the training course for UPC candidates in 2016 and an internship in 2017 at the Boards of Appeal provided by the EPO.

There are no specific procedural issues applying to the Lisbon Local Division of the UPC. The Lisbon Local Division operates according to same procedural rules applicable to other local divisions ‒ primarily, the Unitary Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), the Rules of Procedure (RoP), and the EU Regulation 2020/1784 concerning the service of documents.

It is also worth noting, however, that Portugal operates on Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and that the organisational rules of the Lisbon Local Division regarding oral hearings are available online at the UPC website.

There is no information available for this jurisdiction.

There is no information available for this jurisdiction.

There is no information available for this jurisdiction.

As of 31 May 3035, the Lisbon Local Division has received a total of:

• one infringement action/claim for damages;
• two applications for preliminary injunctions (and other provisional measures);
• one application for a costs decision; and
• one application for freezing of assets.

Two final hearings have taken place before the Lisbon Local Division, both in the context of applications for preliminary injunctions (and other provisional measures).

The first case (application for preliminary injunction and other provisional measures) filed before the Lisbon Local Division concerned a European patent under the following International Patent Classification (IPC) classes:

• H01F 17/00 ‒ fixed inductances of the signal type;
• H01F27/00 – details of transformers or inductances, in general; and
• H01L 27/00 ‒ devices consisting of a plurality of semiconductor or other solid-state components formed in or on a common substrate.

Related to the same patent, an application for a costs decision and a claim for damages were filed.

The second case (application for preliminary injunction and other provisional measures) to be filed before the Lisbon Local Division concerned a European patent in IPC A61K 31/00 – medicinal preparations containing organic active ingredients.

In the first case filed before the Lisbon Local Division, the application for preliminary injunction (and other provisional measures) was filed on June 2024. The hearing took place on 12 September 2024. A decision was issued on 15 October 2024 and, on 14 November 2024, an application for costs decision was filed. A decision was delivered on 4 April 2025.

In the second case filed before the Lisbon Local Division, the application for preliminary injunction (and other provisional measures) was filed on January 2025. The hearing took place on 9 April 2025 and a decision was issued on 8 May 2025.

In the two above-mentioned cases, the final hearings that took place before the Lisbon Local Division – in the context of applications for preliminary injunctions (and other provisional measures) – took no more than one day each, without the hearing of witnesses in person or experts.

No information is available for this jurisdiction.

Only two of the five cases initiated before the Lisbon Local Division involved discussions on matters of substantive patent law ‒ namely, the two preliminary injunction proceedings. Of these, only one has become res judicata: the preliminary injunction proceedings brought by Ericsson against ASUSTeK, DigitalRiver, and Arvato. A related damages claim concerning the same patent remains pending.

The court dismissed Ericsson’s preliminary injunction application on the grounds of lack of urgency. Nevertheless, the Lisbon Local Division addressed certain substantive issues, including patent infringement and validity.

Regarding infringement, one of the key topics discussed was the interpretation of an “offer” made via subdomains of a website. Non-infringement was also argued based on the lack of sufficient evidence and specific allegations regarding the relevant products. As for validity, the main issues raised concerned added matter, lack of novelty, and inventive step.

In the application for provisional measures filed by Boehringer against Zentiva before the Lisbon Local Division, which was denied in the first instance, the discussions focused on what could constitute the basis for granting a preliminary injunction in the pharma sector. No arguments on validity were raised in that case.

In the Ericsson v ASUSTeK/Arvato/Digital River provisional measures request, which was denied on the basis of lack of urgency, the Lisbon Local Division – in its decision dated 15 October 2024 – also addressed the technical merits of the case.

On the acts of infringement, the court held as follows.

• “Offering entails marketing, promoting, advertising, and providing the client with the product to be sold and making it available to the relevant public. If the product is available to the public and perceived as such, it is undoubtably being offered (LD Düsseldorf, 18 October 2023, UPC_CFI_177/2023)”
• “For the purposes of Article 25(a) of the UPCA, it is irrelevant whether the public is able to determine, on the basis of the information provided on the website, whether the products in question fall within the claims of the Patent.”
• “An intermediary serves as a link, or part of the chain, between the infringer and the public.”

An infringement/damages claim is pending between Ericsson against ASUSTeK before the Lisbon Local Division.

In the context of the application for provisional measures between Ericsson and ASUSTeK, DigitalRiver and Arvato, where issues of validity and infringement were at stake, a technically qualified judge (Johannes Mesa Pascasio) was appointed. This judge participated as a full member of the panel, asking questions directly to the parties’ representatives, as no experts or witnesses were appointed to attend the hearing.

Given the uniqueness of this case, no general pattern can yet be identified.

Due to the limited number of cases handled so far by the Lisbon Local Division, it is not yet possible to discern any consistent trends that could be attributed to local judicial practice.

No information is available for this jurisdiction.

The two main oral hearings that took place in the Lisbon Local Division had two judges in common: the president of the division, Rute Lopes, and Petri Rinkinen.

In both of those cases, the court notified in advance on the general structure of the hearing: time to present arguments, clarification on whether they should be in writing or given orally, time for rebuttal, court powers, option of resorting to technological means, and witness participation.

The two final oral hearings were organised in the same way. The judge rapporteur (the president on both occasions) provided for a brief summary of the dispute ‒ following which, both parties pleaded their case for an hour and at the end the court (all the judges individually) directed specific questions to each of the parties. The parties were given some time to consider these questions and then responded (and rebutted) orally.

Where no infringement nor validity issues were at stake, the hearing lasted a morning. When non-infringement and invalidity arguments were raised, the hearing continued in the afternoon.

A number of leading cases involving key procedural matters have taken place in Portugal. The important procedural issues arising in those cases are discussed in further detail here.

Portugal is Ericsson v ASUSTeK/Arvato/Digital River

As mentioned in 3.2 Leading Cases, this case involved a request for provisional measures.

• At the beginning of the proceedings, the parties discussed the applicant’s compliance with Rule 13.1(h) of the RoP – ie, the need to disclose information about any prior or ending proceedings relating to the patent concerned. The court considered that such an issue could be responded to in the reply to the opposition, but given the overall timeline of the proceedings and considering that the oral hearing date had been set, the applicant was invited to comment on the matter separately and within a specific shorter time period. The court ultimately concluded that Rule 13.1(h) of the RoP requires the indication of the actions before other courts or authorities related to the patent in question.

In accordance with Rules 16.2, 16.4 and 208 of the RoP, the registry should invite the claimant to correct the formal deficiencies observed (whether any information at all is provided) ‒ although there is no legal impediment preventing the applicant from making such correction on its own initiative. That being said, there is also no legal impediment for the other party to verify the accuracy or the completeness of the information provided, enabling the court to take a position on the missing information.

The court further concluded that there is no legal basis for the applicant to be ordered to provide copies of the relevant prior art, pleadings and expert reports and that imposing this could represent an imbalance in the parties’ interests. It is also particularly incompatible with the urgency of preliminary injunctions.

• The request for provisional measures was denied on the basis of the “no unreasonable delay” requirement (considered under “urgency”). Although the court ultimately assessed the patent’s likelihood of being valid and infringed, the requested provisional measures were rejected because the court found that it had not been provided with sufficient temporal elements enabling the court to assess the applicant’s diligence in initiating proceedings. The matter was discussed in length in the briefs and at the oral hearing, with the court having put specific questions to the applicant’s side about when they became aware of the potential infringement. Ultimately, the court’s reasoning was based on the “silence of the applicant”, having had to resort to “the date of the alleged infringement” and not on the knowledge of it for the assessment of this requirement.
• The applicant had filed for auxiliary requests for the amendment of the patent claims. Despite not substantively addressing such request, the court noted that auxiliary requests are inadmissible in preliminary injunction proceedings.

As mentioned in 2.3 Case Classification, in relation to the same patent, there was an application for a cost decision under Rule 151 of the RoP.

• In the context of an application for a costs decision, the court had to take a stance on the admissibility of the request for reimbursement of costs in proceedings for provisional measures where preliminary injunctions are rejected. The court concluded that it does not need to be requested as an interim award following an order or in an application for a costs decision once a decision on the merits is rendered, despite the literal interpretation of Rule of 150 of the RoP. The court ordered the reimbursement of the representatives’ travel costs only to avoid a risk of double assessment of costs (vis-à-vis the main infringement/damages action, brought in the meantime). See also 5.3 Costs Awards.

Boehringer v Zentiva

In an application for provisional measures, the defendant raised an argument of lack of jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court of first instance found that the UPC had jurisdiction under Articles 31 and 32.1(a)(c) of the UPCA.

The Lisbon Local Division has received one request for third-party access to documents (under Rule 262.1(b) of the RoP).

No procedural issues are currently pending in the Lisbon Local Division. As there are pending cases, this can change soon.

No witnesses have been heard so far in the Lisbon Local Division, despite it being very typical in the patent proceedings before the Portuguese IP Court. Until now, no behaviour from the court suggests any influence from the local practice.

No information is available for this jurisdiction.

Proceedings for the application of provisional measures have been fixed by the applicants at a value of EUR1 million, which was not contested by the defendants.

Court fees in Portugal are not very high in typical revocation and infringement proceedings (main action and preliminary injunction proceedings). They do not tend to exceed EUR2,000, including appeals.

Court fees in damages claims in Portugal depend on the amount that is being claimed for and the stage of the proceedings (ie, first instance, appeal, or appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice). In ordinary proceedings for disputes with a value up to EUR275,000 and for the appeals, the fees are similar. However, if the value of the claim is higher than EUR275,000, the amount in excess of that figure will be taxed at the end of the proceeding for each stage (which significantly increases the court fees).

In the context of an application for a costs decision, the courtordered the reimbursement of the representatives’ travel costs only, to avoid a risk of double assessment of costs (vis-à-vis the main infringement/damages action brought in the meantime).

In the Boehringer v Zentiva first-instance decision, the Lisbon Local Division referred to the Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs adopted by the Administrative Committee on 24 April 2023 and ordered the applicants to pay the defendant EUR92,944.15 in interim costs.

A damages claim is currently pending in the Lisbon Local Division of the UPC. However, no award has been delivered so far.

The Lisbon Local Division of the UPC offers a valuable opportunity for litigants to benefit from a forum that combines highly qualified judges from multiple jurisdictions, as well as a pragmatic approach to case management. With a limited number of cases currently pending, proceedings can move swiftly.

Portugal’s judicial culture, characterised by openness to different legal approaches and a strong legal background, contributes positively to the credibility of the forum. In addition, the location of the division may offer strategic advantages for companies operating across Europe that seek to litigate in a less congested ‒ but increasingly sophisticated ‒ jurisdiction.

The multilingual flexibility of the Lisbon Local Division may be useful for companies that are seated in Portuguese-speaking countries, as proceedings may be conducted in English or Portuguese.

One potential disadvantage is the still-limited visibility of the Lisbon Local Division among international users. However, as more cases are filed and its case law develops, this is expected to improve.

During the next two years, one of the most significant trends is likely to be the consolidation of the UPC as a central forum for patent litigation in Europe ‒ not only for European rightsholders, but also for non-European companies seeking a unified and efficient venue for enforcing their rights across multiple jurisdictions.

If the system continues to prove its quality in terms of judicial expertise, speed and predictability, it is likely that there will also be an expansion of patent enforcement strategies into less traditional sectors (eg, retail, services, and digital platforms). This could lead to a broader and more strategic use of the patent system in industries that have historically made limited use of IP rights in litigation, which could also lead to the strengthening and development of the interpretation of patent law.

The development of case law ‒ particularly in areas such as the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) framework for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), as well as biotechnology – will also influence the attractiveness and reliability of the UPC as a long-term dispute resolution mechanism.

National patent litigation will continue to play a relevant role in Portugal, particularly in the following areas:

• infringement and validity of national patents or European patents that have been opted out of the UPC;
• infringement and validity of national patents;
• border measures and customs enforcement related to patents;
• administrative and criminal offences in relation to patents; and
• obtaining means of evidence.

While the UPC is attracting increasing attention, national litigation may still be the preferred route in cases where costs, procedural familiarity or strategic considerations favour local enforcement.

Additionally, the rise of new IP strategies may prompt a renewed interest in national patents, especially in sectors or jurisdictions where tailored protection and flexibility are valued. This could lead to a moderate resurgence of national patent filings and litigation in parallel with UPC proceedings.

The authors anticipate continued interaction between national and UPC case law in the coming years. This may contribute to the development of a more harmonised litigation environment across Europe.

A key improvement in the future functioning of the UPC would be to encourage a more balanced distribution of cases across the various local and regional divisions. At present, a significant proportion of cases are concentrated in only a few divisions. Although this may reflect initial user preferences and familiarity, it limits the development of a truly representative and diverse body of UPC case law.

A broader geographical spread of decisions would help ensure that the emerging jurisprudence reflects not only a variety of technical and legal perspectives, but also the rich diversity of legal traditions and judicial reasoning within the EU.

To further improve the efficiency and predictability of the UPC system, the authors suggest:

• improving the accessibility and usability of the Content Management System (CMS) platform, which is already underway; and
• encouraging transparency through the publication of orders and decisions, all translated at least into English, to ensure equal access to information ‒ a crucial factor in the construction of the UPC as a truly European forum (in the future, more translations could be considered, as per the ECJ).

Greater stakeholder engagement and user feedback mechanisms could also support the UPC’s institutional development.