Slovenia, as a participating EU member state in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), hosts a local division of the UPC’s Court of First Instance. It is situated in Ljubljana. The administrative office is located at Fajfarjeva ulica 33, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia and can be contacted via email at ljubljana.loc@unifiedpatentcourt.org or in person during opening hours (upon prior appointment). Opening hours are between 10am and 12:30pm (local time – CET/CEST) on Tuesday and Thursday.

As the UPC observes public holidays as determined by each host country, in Slovenia, the following national public holidays apply:

• New Year ‒ January 1st and January 2nd;
• Prešeren Day (Slovenian cultural holiday) ‒ February 8th;
• Easter Monday ‒ varies annually (it is currently set for 6 April 2026);
• Day of Uprising Against Occupation ‒ April 27th;
• Labour Day ‒ May 1st and May 2nd;
• Statehood Day ‒ June 25th;
• Feast of the Assumption ‒ August 15th;
• Reformation Day ‒ October 31st;
• Day of Remembrance for the Dead ‒ November 1st;
• Christmas Day ‒ December 25th; and
• Independence and Unity Day ‒ December 26th.

On these dates, the UPC Ljubljana Local Division will be closed, and case-related proceedings may be rescheduled accordingly. More information can be found on the official UPC website.

In addition to hosting a local division of the UPC, Slovenia also shares hosting responsibilities for the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the UPC, which is likewise seated in Ljubljana. In July 2024, Slovenian Aleš Zalar was appointed as the director of the PMAC of the UPC, with his responsibilities being divided between the PMAC offices in Ljubljana and Lisbon.

The first meeting of the PMAC Expert Committee members took place on 19 December 2024, setting the stage for discussions on the PMAC’s priorities and structure. At this time, no contact information for PMAC in Ljubljana is available. It can be presumed that its headquarters will be situated in the centre of Ljubljana and that the PMAC in Ljubljana will observe the same national public holidays of Slovenia as listed earlier for the Ljubljana Local Division.

The UPC’s Ljubljana Local Division is presided over by Judge Mojca Mlakar, who previously served as a senior judicial adviser at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, where she participated in plenary sessions of the Commercial Division and drafted judgments in IP law cases. Three years later, Judge Mlakar was appointed as a county court judge, handling civil law cases within the Civil Department. She later advanced to the District Court of Ljubljana, which has exclusive first-instance jurisdiction over IP law matters, allowing her to specialise in IP and competition law.

Currently, Judge Mlakar is a Higher Court judge at the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, where she serves in the Department of Property Relations, Environment, and Spatial Planning (Second Tribunal) – further solidifying her expertise in IP and competition law. The Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia is responsible for judicial review of administrative acts, including decisions issued by the Slovenian IP Office (SIPO). As such, the court adjudicates on matters related to the granting, refusal and validity of IP rights, including patents, trade marks, and designs. Judge Mlakar’s experience in reviewing administrative decisions concerning patent applications and other IP rights further strengthens her qualifications for presiding over cases at the UPC Ljubljana Local Division. More information on Judge Mojca Mlakar can be found on her official UPC profile.

As of April 2025, no additional judges have been officially assigned to the Ljubljana Local Division. However, as the division begins handling cases, it may be expected that further judicial appointments will be made to ensure efficient case management and workload distribution. The UPC framework allows for the designation of technically qualified judges and the involvement of judges from other UPC divisions when necessary, ensuring that specialised expertise is always available for patent disputes adjudicated in Ljubljana.

As mentioned in 1.1 Basic Information, Aleš Zalar has been appointed as director of the PMAC and brings extensive legal and judicial experience to the role. He previously served as a judge and president of the District Court of Ljubljana and held the position of president of the Slovenian Judges’ Association. From 2008 to 2012, Aleš Zalar was Slovenia’s Minister of Justice, and he also briefly served as the acting Minister of Home Affairs between 2011 and 2012.

For the past 12 years, Aleš Zalar has been the president of the European Centre for Dispute Resolution (ECDR), where he has worked as a mediator, arbitrator, and consultant in international rule of law reform projects. His background in both judicial leadership and ADR makes him well-suited to oversee the PMAC’s mission of promoting effective and amicable resolution of patent disputes within the UPC framework. More information about Aleš Zalar is available on his official PMAC profile.

Also representing Slovenia, Gordana Ristin is one of the 11 appointed members of the Administrative Committee of the UPC. A retired judge, she most recently served as a senior High Court Judge and head of the ADR Department at the Higher Court in Ljubljana. Gordana Ristin has been actively engaged in the field of mediation since 2001, bringing together her extensive judicial experience with a strong commitment to mediation, legal education, and policy development both in Slovenia and internationally. Throughout the years, she has held several prominent positions within European mediation networks, including serving as the first president of the Slovenian Association of Mediators from 2006 to 2011.

The Ljubljana Local Division adheres to the procedural framework established by the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) and its Rules of Procedure. As these procedures are standardised across all UPC divisions, the Ljubljana Local Division follows the same general procedural rules as other divisions across participating EU member states.

As of April 2025, no cases have been initiated before the Ljubljana Local Division. Consequently, no division-specific procedural issues have been identified yet.

Furthermore, the language of the proceedings before the Ljubljana Local Division can either be Slovenian (as the official language of the state hosting the UPC division) or English (as the additional language, designated by the UPC division). If parties submit evidence in other languages, they must provide a certified translation into either Slovenian or English, depending on the chosen language of the proceedings. This requirement follows the approach in national courts, where foreign-language documents typically require official translation for admissibility. Given the technical nature of patent cases, translation costs may become a significant factor, particularly for complex patent specifications, expert opinions, and other technical documents.

As the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet faced procedural challenges, it remains to be seen how issues familiar from national patent litigation (such as document handling and translation) will translate into the UPC context. The effectiveness of the UPC’s centralised electronic case management system will play a crucial role in streamlining these processes and ensuring the timely and efficient resolution of disputes before the Ljubljana Local Division.

Slovenia hosts only a local division of the UPC’s Court of First Instance. As mentioned in 1.1 Basic Information, it is situated in Ljubljana.

See 1.4 Regional Division Competence.

There is no information available for this jurisdiction.

As of April 2025 and mentioned in 1.3 Specific Procedural Issues, no case has been initiated before the Ljubljana Local Division. This includes all types of actions, such as infringement actions, revocation actions, actions for declaration of non-infringement, applications for preliminary injunctions, applications for preservation or production of evidence, and merits hearings. Therefore, no statistics information is available as of April 2025.

The current inactivity of the Ljubljana Local Division can be attributed to several factors, including litigants’ preference for other jurisdictions and the early stage of the UPC system in Slovenia. As awareness of the UPC’s framework increases and stakeholders become more acquainted with its procedures, it is expected that the Ljubljana Local Division will begin to experience an increase in case filings.

As no cases have been initiated before the Ljubljana Local Division yet, no substantive hearings have been held. Consequently, no data regarding the types of proceedings and hearings exists.

As already mentioned in 2.2 Substantive Hearings, the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet received any cases. This makes it the only UPC division without active proceedings to date. Consequently, there are no Slovenian UPC cases to classify under the International Patent Classification (IPC) system (Sections A–H), nor are there any local industry trends to report based on UPC litigation in Slovenia.

Owing to the lack of cases before the Ljubljana Local Division, it impossible to assess the division’s adherence to the timelines suggested by the preparatory committee or identify trends in the duration of hearings within this jurisdiction. Once the Ljubljana Local Division begins handling cases, it is expected to follow the same practices as other UPC divisions, aiming to balance timely proceedings with the thorough examination of each case.

Given the fact that the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet received any cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), there is no available data to identify specific litigation patterns affecting its jurisdiction. The division’s approach to these matters will be closely observed and may influence broader trends within the UPC framework.

No legal topics have been covered yet before the Ljubljana Local Division, as no cases have been conducted in its jurisdiction (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings).

No “leading cases” are available yet before the Ljubljana Local Division, as the division has not handled any cases as of the time of writing this submission (April 2025). Consequently, no substantive patent law issues have emerged.

As of April 2025, the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet received any cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings). Therefore, there are no pending cases before the Ljubljana Local Division to report.

Owing to the absence of cases before the Ljubljana Local Division at the time of writing (April 2025), there is no available data on the interaction between technically qualified judges, legally qualified judges, parties’ representatives, and experts appointed by the parties within this jurisdiction.

As no legal decision of the Ljubljana Local Division has been issued to date, there is no clear indication available if the substantive legal decisions of the UPC division in Slovenia will be influenced by previous local practices in the national courts.

Patent cases before Slovenian national courts have been quite limited, thus the court practice is not developed as in some other European jurisdictions. Therefore, in practice, the Slovenian national courts often refer to approaches taken by courts in other jurisdictions to help resolve specific questions. Similarly, the UPC decisions are growing in number and the Ljubljana Local Division has not tried any cases yet. For these reasons, it may be expected that both the Ljubljana Local Division and the Slovenian national courts would follow the practices as they are being developed by other UPC divisions.

As the UPC system develops and more cases are filed, the integration of national practices within the UPC’s procedural framework may become more evident, shaping the division’s handling of IP cases, particularly in relation to provisional relief measures.

There is no information available for this jurisdiction.

Owing to the absence of cases before the Ljubljana Local Division at the time of writing this submission (April 2025), there is no established pattern or practice regarding the conduct of hearings in this jurisdiction. It can be anticipated that once the Ljubljana Local Division commences handling cases, similar practices established before other UPC divisions will be adopted in Slovenia as well, ensuring a structured and efficient approach to patent litigation. It is likely that the division’s approach will align with the general principles of the UPC.

Because the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet handled any substantive patent cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), there are no procedural issues or leading cases to report from this jurisdiction. Once the division commences operations, it is expected to adopt the general procedural framework of the UPC, ensuring a structured and efficient approach to patent litigation.

Owing to the lack of cases before the Ljubljana Local Division (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), there is no available information regarding its approach to granting access to court documents for third parties.

No procedural issues are pending yet before the Ljubljana Local Division, as it has not yet handled any cases (see 1.3 Specific Procedural Issues).

Given that the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet handled any cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), no information is available regarding its approach to evidence production orders, witness examination, or expert witness procedures. Once the division begins handling cases, these practices will become apparent.

As the Ljubljana Local Division has not handled any cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), there are no available decisions from the court of appeal specifically addressing procedural differences within the Ljubljana Local Division.

Given that the Ljubljana Local Division has not yet handled any substantive cases (see 2.2 Substantive Hearings), there is no empirical data on litigants’ approaches to case valuation or the corresponding court fees. Once the division begins adjudicating cases, it is anticipated that practices regarding case valuation and fee assessments will align with the established UPC framework.

While both the Slovenian national system and the UPC system of court fees is generally based on the value of the dispute before the court, there are some key differences, as follows.

• Scale of fees ‒ UPC court fees are significantly higher than those in Slovenia, especially for larger disputes.
• Fee structure ‒ Slovenian court fees tend to be either fixed (for specific procedures) or based on the lower value of the claim, whereas UPC fees are progressive, increasing as the value of the dispute rises (with no fixed fees).
• Exemptions and reductions ‒ both systems offer fee reductions or exemptions for certain categories of litigants, such as SMEs, non-profit organisations, and public entities. However, the UPC system is more structured, with set reductions for these parties. In contrast, Slovenian courts offer discretionary fee reductions based on financial hardship, without specific percentages for particular categories.

Generally, UPC court fees are higher compared to national courts in Slovenia. Both systems base their fees on the value of the dispute, but the UPC’s higher fees reflect the international nature of the court. In contrast, Slovenian court fees are generally lower and more predictable, making them a potentially more accessible option, depending on circumstances. The UPC’s sliding scale ensures that parties involved in high-value cases contribute more to the costs of the court system. Slovenian fees, in contrast, remain more predictable and are typically lower.

The court fees at the UPC are structured differently from those in Slovenia, primarily owing to the international scope of the UPC and its aim to ensure that parties contribute proportionally to the costs of the court system. The UPC uses a sliding scale for its fees, which are calculated based on the value of the dispute (the amount in controversy). The UPC system also incorporates provisions for reduced fees for SMEs, non-profit organisations, universities, and public research organisations. These reductions are intended to make the UPC more accessible and to incentivise participation from entities that may otherwise find the court fees prohibitive.

On the other hand, in Slovenia, court fees for patent-related matters are also linked to the value of the claim – although the structure is quite different. The fees for litigation are governed by the Court Fees Act, which provides a more predictable and straightforward approach. The key features of the Slovenian court fee system are as follows.

• Variable fees ‒ in civil cases, including IP disputes, the court fees are typically calculated based on the monetary value of the claim. However, these fees are generally much lower compared to the UPC system. By way of example, Slovenian court fees in civil cases can range from EUR100 to EUR2,000, depending on the value of the claim. Even in larger cases, Slovenian fees remain more affordable than those in the UPC. In patent disputes in which permanent injunctions but no damages are sought (at least not initially), it is up to the claimant to set a value of dispute, which in turn affects the court and recoverable attorney’s fees.

• Application fees ‒ Slovenian courts also charge additional fees for specific procedural actions, such as applying for interim measures or filing an appeal. These application fees are generally lower than those imposed by the UPC.

Similar to the UPC, Slovenian court fees can be waived or reduced for certain categories of litigants. By way of example, parties facing financial hardship (eg, individuals on low income or certain public entities) can apply for a fee reduction or exemption. Slovenia has a fee-waiver system for parties who can demonstrate financial hardship. However, unlike the UPC system, Slovenia does not have predefined percentage reductions for specific categories of litigants.

In the Ljubljana Local Division, no cost awards have been made to date.

At the date of writing this submission (April 2025), the Ljubljana Local Division has not made any damages awards. Therefore, there are no available decisions regarding the court’s approach to calculating damages in this jurisdiction.

Seising the Ljubljana Local Division offers several distinct advantages for parties involved in patent litigation. These advantages have already been recognised by the SIPO and presented also by the European Patent Office (EPO) in its Unitary Patent Guide. The Ljubljana Local Division provides access to an international court with expertise specifically in patent and IP law, offering predictability and quality in handling complex IP matters.

Additionally, the UPC offers additional efficiency in cross-border disputes. The UPC allows litigants to bring a single case for patent disputes involving multiple European countries, reducing the need for multiple actions in various jurisdictions. This cross-border efficiency saves both time and money, particularly for companies with patents across the EU.

Furthermore, compared to other high-cost jurisdictions in Europe, the Ljubljana Local Division offers more predictable and affordable fees for Slovenian companies and SMEs. The fee structure is designed to be more accessible, especially for smaller enterprises or non-profit organisations, which could make the UPC an attractive option for local patent holders.

Finally, Slovenia’s geographic position in Central Europe makes the Ljubljana Local Division a convenient venue for patent litigation, especially for companies based in neighbouring countries such as Italy, Austria and Croatia. This local proximity offers an accessible option for regional patent holders without the added costs and complexities of traveling to more distant jurisdictions.

While the primary disadvantage compared to Slovenian national courts remains the relatively higher cost, the long-term benefits of specialised expertise, cross-border efficiency, and accessible location make the Ljubljana Local Division an attractive option for many litigants. The advantages appear to outweigh the drawbacks, particularly for businesses involved in complex international patent disputes.

In the opinion of the authors, the most significant trends likely to affect patent litigation in the UPC and across Europe in the next two years include the following.

• Evolving jurisprudence and case law ‒ as the UPC develops its body of case law, there will likely be greater predictability in the application of patent law principles across Europe. A harmonised approach to patent infringement and validity decisions will emerge, which could lead to more consistency in the interpretation of patent rights across European countries. This trend will also be influenced by the increasing interaction between the UPC and national patent offices, as well as European institutions, especially in relation to European patent law reforms. This will especially have great importance in Slovenia, where patent case law is scarce.
• Increased use of the UPC for cross-border patent disputes ‒ as the UPC system becomes more established, it is expected that there will be a significant rise in the use of the UPC for cross-border patent disputes. The ability to bring a single case that covers multiple European countries will likely be attractive to patent holders, especially large corporations with portfolios spanning several jurisdictions. This would lead to an increase in the volume of cases at the UPC, especially as companies seek a more streamlined and efficient resolution of disputes without the need for parallel proceedings in individual national courts.
• Increase in cases involving SMEs and non-profit entities ‒ with the fee reduction mechanism and more accessible costs, there may be an increase in cases brought by SMEs, as well as non-profit organisations and universities. These groups will benefit from the UPC’s affordable fee structure and the simplified, centralised approach to litigation. As SMEs grow their patent portfolios, they may increasingly turn to the UPC as a cost-effective way to protect their IP on a pan-European scale.

These trends are expected to drive the evolution of patent litigation in Europe, particularly as the UPC becomes an increasingly important forum for resolving complex cross-border patent disputes. Further information on future trends can also be found on the official page of the SIPO and in the publications and brochures on the UPC available on the Slovenian government website.

On 1 June 2023, the patent package – encompassing patents with unitary effect and the associated UPC – came into effect in Slovenia. Also in 2023, Slovenia implemented procedural and substantive legislative changes to its national patent law to better align with the UPC system. While the UPC is expected to handle most cross-border patent disputes, national patent litigation in Slovenia will still play a crucial role in cases that fall outside the scope of the UPC’s jurisdiction. By way of example, national actions for infringement or revocation may be pursued if the patent in question is not subject to the UPC (eg, in cases involving national patents or Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs)).

Slovenian courts may also handle cases involving smaller parties or those seeking interim relief that is not urgent enough to require a UPC decision. National patent courts will also remain important for the adjudication of local issues related to patents granted under Slovenian law.

Additionally, the Slovenian courts will remain important during the transitional period of the UPCA in cases of “conventional” European patents. Article 83 of the UPCA provides for a transitional period of seven years, extendable by up to another seven – during which, actions for infringement or revocation may still be brought before national courts. Moreover, proprietors or applicants of European patents granted or filed before the end of this transitional period may opt out of the UPC’s jurisdiction by notifying the UPC Registry (rather than the EPO), provided no proceedings have already been initiated before the UPC. The opt-out status of a European patent is available in the European Patent Register. This opt-out may also be withdrawn at any time, unless proceedings have commenced before a national court. It is important to note, however, that this transitional opt-out mechanism and parallel access to national courts do not apply to unitary patents.

Finally, Slovenian courts may also provide complementary relief, such as handling interim injunctions, procedural motions, or preliminary actions related to patents that are also pending before the UPC. The role of national courts will thus likely become more focused on specific and localised issues, complementing the broader framework established by the UPC.

To help ensure the long-term success of the UPC by making it more efficient, predictable, and accessible to a broader range of users, the following improvements seem important.

• Increasing awareness and accessibility ‒ many businesses, especially SMEs and national patent holders, may not yet fully understand the benefits and risks of using the UPC. Targeted training for legal professionals, as well as guidelines on how the UPC functions (especially for smaller companies) would increase accessibility.
• Clarifying legal precedence ‒ it is essential to ensure that decisions remain consistent, predictable and accessible.
• Additional fee reductions ‒ while the UPC has introduced a fee reduction for SMEs and non-profit organisations, further refinements may be needed to ensure that costs remain proportionate to the value of disputes. This could include additional fee waivers for economically weaker entities or the use of alternative cost models to prevent excessive financial burdens on smaller litigants.