The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (NBRD) is the only regional division within the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The division encompasses Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The seat of the NBRD is located in Stockholm, Sweden. Its operations are conducted in the same premises as the Stockholm District Court. The postal address is: Box 8307, 104 20 Stockholm, Sweden.

The visiting address is: Scheelegatan 7, 112 28 Stockholm, Sweden.

Contact is made via email: contact_stockholm.reg@unifiedpatentcourt.org

The court’s opening hours are Tuesday to Thursday from 09:00 to 11:30 AM (local time). Information on public holidays and official opening hours is available on the Court’s website.

If hearings are held at any of the division’s other premises – located in Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius – these premises are open only when a case is being heard at that location.

The email contact remains the same as for the centre in Stockholm.

The panel of the NBRD consists of two permanent judges: Stefan Johansson and Kai Härmand.

Stefan Johansson

Stefan Johansson has been the Presiding Judge of the NBRD of the UPC since June 2023.

He is a Swedish legally qualified judge. Before taking up his position at the NBRD, he served as a patent judge at the Stockholm District Court and at the Swedish Patent and Market Court since 2013.

Prior to that, Stefan Johansson worked for nearly 11 years at the Swedish Ministry of Justice (Division for Intellectual Property Rights). At the Ministry, he was primarily responsible for matters relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including implementation of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC). He was also involved in legislative work on substantive patent law, such as the implementation of the Biotech Directive (98/44/EC). Earlier in his career, Stefan served as an associate judge.

Stefan Johansson has acted as an expert in several national inquiries on intellectual property rights and regularly lectures on IP and enforcement. He has participated in numerous international seminars, workshops and training sessions focusing on patent law and/or the UPC, including a judicial internship at the EPO Boards of Appeal. He was also a member of the Expert Group of Practitioners for the UPC.

Kai Härmand

Kai Härmand of Estonia is the second permanent judge of the NBRD. She has served as a judge at Harju County Court since 2020. Prior to that, she held roles as Deputy Secretary General at the Estonian Ministry of Justice and as a legal adviser at the Estonian Patent Office.

Between 2006 and 2014, Kai Härmand served as a legally qualified member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO).

Procedural Considerations Before the NBRD

A first and an important example of a procedural issue specific to the NBRD, and not applicable to other divisions, is the requirement that the language of proceedings is English – and English only. This ensures that a party is not exposed to the risk of facing proceedings in a less favourable language.

Additional procedural considerations have also arisen in connection with case opening, service of documents and related matters. For instance, in Edwards v Meril concerning EP 3 769 722, the NBRD issued a decision on how to practically manage counterclaims for revocation filed by multiple infringement defendants. At the time, this necessitated several parallel workflows in the UPC’s case management system (CMS) (subsequently amended), but only a single revocation fee was reportedly charged for all counterclaims.

A further example is found in Abbott v Dexcom concerning EP 3 977 921, where the NBRD considered a request for a decision by default on a counterclaim for revocation – effectively, to revoke the patent without assessing the merits. The request was based on the argument that the patent holder failed to respond within the relevant time limit, replying two weeks after the correctly calculated deadline had expired. The request was ultimately denied, primarily due to uncertainties around the deadline. These arose from the fact that the counterclaim for revocation was initially served via email and only later made available through the court’s CMS, and because the patent holder had relied on the deadline as confirmed by the court clerks. The Division also reminded the parties of the importance of focusing on the merits of the case rather than on procedural issues and uncertainties often caused by CMS-related bottlenecks.

The seat of the NBRD is located in Stockholm, Sweden. Proceedings are held in the same premises as the Stockholm District Court, which also handles the administrative and logistical aspects of the Division together with the Swedish National Courts Administration. In addition to Stockholm, designated hearing centres are also available in Tallinn (Estonia), Riga (Latvia) and Vilnius (Lithuania).

As a general rule, hearings take place in Stockholm unless otherwise decided. However, parties may request that a hearing be held in one of the other available centres. If the Division considers there to be sufficient reason, the hearing may be relocated accordingly.

To date, however, all oral hearings before the NBRD have been conducted exclusively in Stockholm.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

A total of seven infringement actions have been commenced before the NBRD, as follows:

• Edwards v Meril et al – EP2628464 (ACT_459769/2023, UPC_CFI_8/2023). Oral hearing scheduled for 18 July 2025;
• Ocado v Autostore et al – EP3653540 (ACT_459791/2023, UPC_CFI_11/2023). Settled before all defendants were served with the statement of claim;
• Edwards v Meril et al – EP3769722 (ACT_582093/2023, UPC_CFI_380/2023). Oral hearing held on 16 January 2025. No decision issued yet;
• Abbott v Dexcom et al – EP3977921 (ACT_588346/2023, UPC_CFI_430/2023). Oral hearing held on 19 December 2024. Case settled following the hearing;
• Texport v Sioen – EP2186428 (ACT_953/2024, UPC_CFI_9/2024) . Oral hearing held on 11 February 2025. No decision issued yet; 
• Viking Arm v Stanley Black & Decker et al – EP3953541 (ACT_19392/2024, UPC_CFI_172/2024). Oral hearing held on 25 March 2025. Parties seem to have filed applications to withdraw their respective actions after the hearing; and
• Playtech Software v Games Global et al – EP3827889 (ACT_53528/2024, UPC_CFI_558/2024).

A total of thirteen counterclaims for revocation have been commenced before the NBRD, as follows:

• Sormedica v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587618/2023);
• Smis v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587616/2023);
• Meril v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587597/2023);
• Meril Lifesciences v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587594/2023);
• Stanley Black & Decker v Viking Arm – EP3953541 (CC 44381/2024, UPC_CFI_452/2024);
• Dexcom v Abbott – EP3977921 (CC 14848/2024);
• Vab-Logistik v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14326/2024);
• Interlux v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14325/2024);
• Sormedica v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14323/2024);
• SMIS v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14320/2024);
• Meril v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14317/2024);
• Meril v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14226/2024); and
• Playtech v Games Global – EP3827889 (CC_6080/2025, UPC_CFI_91/2025).

The NBRD has also received the following application for preserving evidence pursuant to Rule 192 RoP:

• Imbox Protection v Brunngård Group and Footbridge Group (ACT_51647/2024, UPC_CFI_527/2024).

The following application for a cost decision has been submitted to the NBRD:

• Meril v Erik Krahbichler (ACT_63163/2024, UPC_CFI_732/2024).

The following application for provisional measures has been submitted pursuant to Rule 206 RoP:

Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic (ACT_63292/2024, UPC_CFI_734/2024).

The NBRD has held the following hearings.

Oral Hearings – Four (with one further hearing scheduled for 18 July 2025):

• Abbott v Dexcom – 19 December 2024 (infringement and counterclaim);
• Edwards v Meril et al EP3769722 – 16 January 2025 (infringement and counterclaim);
• Texport v Sioen – 11 February 2025 (infringement); and
• Viking v Stanley Black & Decker et al – 25 March 2025 (infringement and counterclaim).

Expert Hearing – One:

• Abbott v Dexcom – 18 December 2024 (full-day hearing prior to oral hearing).

Interim Conferences – Four:

• Abbot v Dexcom – 30 September 2024;
• Texport v Sioen – 16 October 2024;
• Edwards v Meril et al EP3769722 – 5 November 2024; and
• Viking v Stanley Black & Decker et al – 26 February 2025.

If infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation concerning the same dispute are grouped and treated as a single case, nine proceedings have been commenced before the NBRD.

Two-thirds of these cases fall under IPC Class A (Human Necessities). However, this concentration does not primarily relate to pharmaceuticals, but rather to medical devices, as well as cases involving biotechnology and gaming technology.

The remaining cases are spread across other IPC classifications, including Class B (Performing Operations; Transporting), Class C (Chemistry; Metallurgy), and Class E (Fixed Constructions).

Notably, the strong presence of cases in Class G (Physics) and Class H (Electricity) – which can be observed across other UPC Divisions – has not yet materialised before the NBRD.

Timelines and Hearings before the NBRD

To date, five cases before the NBRD have either proceeded to oral hearing or have one scheduled. In three of these cases, the oral hearing took place within 14 months of the lodging of the statement of claim. A fourth hearing was held after approximately 16 months, while the fifth, scheduled 18 months after filing, had been stayed for eight of those months due to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).

All oral hearings have been concluded within a single day. In one matter, four expert witnesses were heard the day prior to the hearing itself, indicating flexibility in the scheduling approach to accommodate evidentiary needs.

Given that the UPC remains in its initial operational phase, these timelines suggest that the NBRD is largely succeeding in adhering to the timeframe set out in the Rules of Procedure – namely, that the oral hearing should be held within 12 months of the filing of the statement of claim. This is broadly consistent with what might be expected in national Swedish proceedings, where a hearing within one year is also common, absent delays caused, for example, by procedural complexity.

Moreover, concerns that oral hearings might extend significantly in length, contrary to the UPC’s stated aims, appear to be unsubstantiated at this stage.

There is, however, a note of caution. The NBRD has not yet delivered its first decision on the merits. According to the Rules of Procedure, decisions on the merits are expected within six weeks of the oral hearing. In April 2025, one decision on the merits had been delayed by eight weeks, and another by four weeks. It remains to be seen whether this will become a pattern or is merely a reflection of early-phase operational constraints.

It is also worth noting that the NBRD has twice refused to stay proceedings on the grounds of parallel EPO opposition proceedings. In one of those cases, the NBRD’s oral hearing was scheduled to occur at the same time as the EPO hearing. This can be seen as a stricter approach to the stay of proceedings than that adopted under Swedish national practice, where stays are sometimes granted.

The cases initiated before the NBRD thus far exhibit a clear litigation pattern, which may be summarised as follows.

Infringement actions are almost invariably followed by a counterclaim for revocation. These counterclaims for revocation are, in turn, nearly always followed by an application by the patent holder to amend the patent.

In at least one case, the defendant in the infringement action has pursued both a counterclaim for revocation and a central revocation action. In another case, the defendant has initiated both a revocation action and a declaratory action of non-infringement before a national court. This has led to various preliminary issues for the NBRD to address – most notably, questions of litis pendens and stay of proceedings.

In one or more cases, applications for provisional measures or for preservation of evidence have been filed, but the proceedings were subsequently discontinued without further litigation.

The matters addressed in cases conducted before the NBRD to date can be broadly summarised as follows.

• Edwards v Meril (EP 2 628 464) – the Division has addressed issues including the staying of proceedings pending a written decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal in opposition proceedings, amended statements of claim and defence, and public access to pleadings and evidence.
• Ocado v Autostore (EP 3 653 540) – the Division considered matters relating to the reimbursement of fees and public access to documents, specifically the statement of claim.
• Edwards v Meril (EP 3 769 722) – issues addressed include security for legal costs, stay of proceedings, application to amend the patent, assessment of inventive step, the doctrine of equivalence (considered not to constitute an amendment of the action), appointment of a court expert, offer to hear party experts, potential referral to the CJEU, bifurcation and legal costs in relation to public access requests.
• Abbott v Dexcom (EP 3 977 921) – the Division has considered, among other things, an application to amend the patent, leave to amend the action, adjustment of relief sought, default decision on a counterclaim for revocation, provision of information on distribution channels, security for costs, examination of party-appointed experts, filing of physical evidence, and withdrawal of both the infringement action and counterclaim without a cost decision.
• Texport v Sioen (EP 2 186 428) – the Division has addressed questions concerning jurisdiction and/or competence in light of parallel national court proceedings.
• Viking v Stanley Black & Decker (EP 3 953 541) – issues addressed include joint liability for infringement, leave to submit further written pleadings, and confidentiality of personal information contained in submissions.
• Imbox v Brunngård (EP 2 276 862) – the Division has considered an application to preserve evidence (saisie), inspection of property, and reimbursement of legal costs following the withdrawal of an application
• Meril v Erik Krahbichler – the case involved an application for a cost decision in connection with a request for access to court documents.
• Fapa Vital v Valentis – the Division addressed an application for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a request for provisional measures.

As of the time of writing, the NBRD has not yet issued a decision on the merits in any of its pending cases. This makes it difficult to discuss in detail how the Division approaches key substantive issues such as claim construction, infringement assessment, infringement by equivalents, the test for inventive step/obviousness, added matter or insufficiency. However, as the Division is expected to hand down decisions in the near future, these questions will naturally come into sharper focus.

The publicly available documents in the cases initiated so far indicate that, in the context of infringement, the NBRD is already being confronted with substantive issues such as the meaning of the term “offering”, joint liability and supply chain, the defendants’ distribution chain for the accused products, involvement of multiple parties in the alleged infringement, contributory infringement, claim construction, doctrine of equivalence, identity of the skilled person, and proportionality and public interest as a defence against injunctive relief.

In the context of validity, the Division is facing substantive questions including alternative starting points for the assessment of inventive step, real-world products as prior art, prior public use and added matter.

This is covered in 2.1 Types of Actions and 3.1 Topics Covered.

To date, the NBRD has appointed technically qualified judges in a total of five cases. In four of these, the appointed judges had a background in mechanical engineering.

Notably, judges at the NBRD – including the technically qualified judges – appear to take a more active role during oral hearings than is typically observed in Swedish national court proceedings. Whereas judges in Swedish panels often adopt a more passive stance, primarily listening to the parties’ pleadings and witness testimonies, hearings before the NBRD – generally shorter in duration – require a greater degree of judicial engagement throughout the proceedings.

From a Swedish perspective, this higher level of activity is a notable shift and appears to reflect the procedural demands and format of hearings before the UPC.

Reasonable Number of Auxiliary Requests – Guidance From the NBRD

In Edwards v Meril, concerning EP 3 769 722, the NBRD addressed the issue of what constitutes a “reasonable number” of auxiliary requests for claim amendment. In this case, the patent holder submitted 11 auxiliary requests, along with ten additional requests that were identical in substance except for the deletion of dependent claims.

The Division considered that this fell within the bounds of what could be deemed a reasonable number of auxiliary requests, particularly in light of the large number of validity attacks raised by the revocation claimant. This outcome aligns with local procedural practice, where no strict numerical limit is imposed on the number of auxiliary requests that may formally be submitted by a patent holder during proceedings. The division’s approach thus appears to have been influenced by national procedural traditions, reflecting a pragmatic view in the face of complex revocation strategies.

Not applicable.

The NBRD has, to date, held substantive hearings in four cases. These are: Abbott v Dexcom concerning EP 3 977 921, Edwards v Meril concerning EP 3 769 722, Texport v Sioen concerning EP 2 186 428, and Viking Arm v Stanley Black & Decker concerning EP 3 953 541.

In each of these cases, the panel has included a technically qualified judge.

All hearings have lasted a full day and followed a detailed schedule set by the Divisional Panel. The structure typically includes an introduction by the Panel, followed by the counterclaim for revocation and the infringement action, with alternating presentations and responses by the parties in segments of one hour or 30 minutes, concluding with final pleadings.

Ahead of the hearings, the Division has, at least in some cases, issued instructions to the parties highlighting specific issues it wished to address. These have included matters such as added matter in amended patent claims, and whether such amendments overcome revocation objections. In the infringement proceedings, issues have included the defendant’s distribution chain, and whether one among several alleged infringers was in fact involved. The Division has also addressed the interpretation of certain claim features specifically identified by the panel, as well as issues of proportionality and the public interest – such as patients’ access to adequate medical treatment – when considering injunctive relief or other remedies.

In at least one case, the Division has also shared its preliminary views on certain points – for example, that the patent-in-dispute could not be upheld in its granted form, but could be maintained in amended form in accordance with one of several auxiliary requests.

Procedural Themes Emerging from Early NBRD Cases

As outlined in 3.1 Topics Covered, a number of legal issues have already been addressed in the cases before the NBRD. Below, several matters are highlighted that may be regarded as leading cases for procedural developments before the Division.

Stay of Proceedings

One example that may reflect a different approach by the NBRD compared to national Swedish practice concerns the stay of proceedings. In Edwards v Meril regarding EP 2 628 464, the Division stayed the case for eight months due to pending opposition proceedings before the EPO. That outcome might have been the same in Swedish national proceedings under similar circumstances. In Edwards v Meril regarding EP 3 769 722, however, the Division rejected a request for stay, despite the fact that the EPO opposition hearing was scheduled for the day after the NBRD’s oral hearing. That decision was appealed, remitted and again reconsidered by the NBRD, which maintained its refusal to stay proceedings. This position appears to be somewhat stricter than that under national Swedish practice, where stays have sometimes been granted because of parallel EPO proceedings.

Hearing of Expert Witnesses

In Abbott v Dexcom, the NBRD addressed the procedural question of when and how expert witness testimony should be heard. The Division scheduled a full day of expert testimony to take place on the day before the oral hearing, involving two expert witnesses from each side.

The court provided limited reasoning for its decision beyond citing Article 53.1 of the UPCA, which allows for the hearing of witnesses, and referring to Rules 178 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure, which govern such hearings. The Division did, however, specify that the examination should be kept brief: each party was allowed 20 minutes for direct examination and cross-examination, and then ten minutes for re-examination. In view of the strong oral tradition in Swedish proceedings and the limited scope for relying solely on written testimony, this approach is consistent with expectations drawn from national practice.

Security for Costs

In one of the cases Edwards v Meril, the Division considered a request by the defendant, Meril, that the claimant, Edwards, be ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR800,000. The value of the proceedings was estimated at EUR3 million. Meril argued that Edwards, a US-based company, might not voluntarily comply with a cost recovery order issued by the UPC, and that it was highly uncertain whether such an order could be enforced in the United States.

The NBRD rejected the request. It emphasised that the burden rests with the party seeking security to provide sufficient justification. The Division held that the lack of prior UPC enforcement experience in the United States did not, in itself, justify an order for security. Furthermore, Meril had presented no evidence suggesting that Edwards would be unable to satisfy a costs order, if issued.

Jurisdiction in View of Parallel National Proceedings

In Texport v Sioen, the defendant Sioen challenged the NBRD’s jurisdiction, citing pending Belgian national court proceedings. In the case before the NBRD, Texport (the licensee of the patent) brought an infringement action against Sioen based on alleged infringing acts in Latvia and Portugal. Prior to this, Sioen had brought an action in Belgium seeking a declaration of non-infringement against the patent holder but not the licensee. After the NBRD action commenced, Sioen also initiated invalidity proceedings in Belgium.

Sioen argued that the NBRD lacked jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, referring to Articles 29 and 31 (litis pendens), or alternatively, that proceedings should be dismissed or at least stayed under Article 30.

The NBRD disagreed. It firstly held that Article 83(1) UPCA, concerning transitional jurisdiction of national courts, also applies to actions for declarations of non-infringement, even if such actions are not explicitly listed in the provision.

The Division further concluded that Articles 29 and 31 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation did not apply, as the NBRD and Belgian actions were not between the same parties. In Belgium, the action involved the patent holder, whereas the NBRD action involved the licensee – meaning there was no identity of parties. The NBRD thus retained jurisdiction.

Finally, the Division declined to stay the proceedings under Article 30. It noted that the Belgian court had only claimed jurisdiction over the Belgian part of the patent, and no information had been provided regarding the substance of the invalidity claim. Moreover, the main hearing in Belgium was scheduled to take place after the NBRD hearing. For these reasons, the Division found no sufficient grounds to stay the proceedings.

Access to Written Pleadings by Third Parties

The NBRD has already dealt with several instances where third parties – typically with only a general or commercial interest in the outcome – have requested access to written pleadings and evidence in UPC proceedings.

In Ocado v Autostore (UPC_CFI_11/2023, 17 October 2023), the proceedings had been closed following a settlement between the parties. A third party, acting as a member of the public, requested access to the statement of claim. The NBRD granted the request and ordered disclosure of the document.

Ocado appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance decision (see Ocado v Autostore, UPC CoA 404/2024, 10 April 2024).

In a subsequent matter in June 2024, a member of the public requested access to written pleadings and evidence in a number of ongoing cases between Edwards and Meril. In a later filing, the applicant clarified that he was a board member and investor in a medical device company and therefore had a commercial interest in the case. Nevertheless, the NBRD rejected the request. The Division held that, as the proceedings were ongoing, the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

This outcome is consistent with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore, and notably, the NBRD left open the possibility that access could be granted after the proceedings had concluded. The decision expressly stated that the request was denied “at this point in time”.

This is covered in 3.1 Topics Covered.

Influence of National Procedural Practice on the NBRD’s Decision-Making

The extent to which the NBRD has been influenced by national procedural practice – particularly Swedish practice – is somewhat mixed. In some instances, the Division has reached outcomes that differ from what one would expect if the matter had been decided by a Swedish court. In others, the outcome has been fully in line with Swedish procedural expectations. Importantly, in those cases where the result was expected based on Swedish national practice, the NBRD’s reasoning still adhered closely to the provisions of the UPC framework.

As discussed in 2.4 Time Lines, the NBRD seems to take a somewhat stricter view than Swedish courts regarding stays of infringement proceedings in light of parallel EPO opposition proceedings. In at least one case, the Division declined to stay the proceedings under circumstances where a stay might have been granted by a Swedish national court.

By contrast, the Division’s approach to the hearing of expert witnesses appears to be closely aligned with Swedish procedural norms. Its decision to permit a full day of expert testimony prior to the main hearing is entirely consistent with the centrality of orality in Swedish litigation, and may reasonably be viewed as reflecting influence from domestic procedural traditions.

The NBRD has notably been involved in an issue that has attracted considerable attention within the patent legal community – an issue where the NBRD and another Division of the Court expressed diverging views, and where the Court of Appeal has since issued a decision that resolves the differences.

The matter concerns access to documents in UPC proceedings. While all orders and decisions are published to ensure transparency and enable the public to follow the development of case law, other procedural materials – such as written submissions and evidence – are not made public. Access to these requires a written, reasoned request.

The Central Division in Munich has taken a restrictive approach to such requests. In a case related to Sanofi v Amgen, the Division held that a request to access case materials for “educational purposes” could not be accommodated.

The NBRD, by contrast, has adopted a more open stance. In a case related to Ocado v Autostore, the Division granted a request for access to the statement of claim after redaction of personal data. Notably, the case had already been settled at the time the request was decided. The Division emphasised that the written procedure shall, in principle, be open to the public, unless confidentiality is exceptionally necessary in the interest of one of the parties, other affected persons, or the general interest of justice or public order. However, the Division denied access to documents from other cases pending before other Divisions.

The Court of Appeal, notably with the Swedish judge Ingeborg Simonsson acting as judge-rapporteur, established an important precedent by granting access to the statement of claim in Ocado v Autostore. The Court clarified the applicable legal standard for document access and drew a distinction between requests concerning concluded proceedings and those relating to ongoing proceedings. A request for access to documents in a concluded case should generally be granted. However, access to documents in ongoing proceedings requires a direct legitimate interest – for example, that of a competitor or licensee.

The cases currently available before the NBRD reveal that parties have taken widely differing approaches when it comes to the valuation of disputes.

In infringement actions, the amounts in dispute have ranged from EUR0.5 million to EUR15 million, with an average value of just under EUR5 million and a median value of EUR3 million.

For counterclaims for revocation, the corresponding figures span from EUR1 million to EUR15 million.

In the context of applications for provisional measures and preservation of evidence, the values assigned to the matters have been EUR800,000 and EUR249,000 respectively.

Since 2016, Sweden has maintained two specialist courts for patent and other intellectual property disputes. These are the Patent and Market Court and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal. Both courts have national jurisdiction over all patent disputes arising anywhere in the country. They are dedicated IP courts with a specialised composition, consisting of both legally qualified judges and technical experts, all with substantial experience in patent matters.

In addition to their national jurisdiction, the courts also exercise international jurisdiction over cross-border patent disputes, in accordance with the provisions of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and other applicable rules on international jurisdiction. This has been clearly affirmed in the CJEU’s recent decision in C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte, where the underlying national dispute was pending before the Swedish IP courts. The same applies to C-399/21 IRnova, also concerned with international jurisdiction in patent disputes, and which likewise stemmed from proceedings before the Swedish IP courts.

The Swedish court system differs from the UPC in one particularly important respect: it is not fee-based but government-funded. As a result, court fees are virtually negligible. For example, the filing fee for a patent infringement action in Sweden is less than EUR300.

This stands in stark contrast to the fees applicable before the UPC, which can reach substantial levels – often in the hundreds of thousands of euros.

This makes the Swedish IP court a very cost-effective option, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises or individual inventors. The UPC, by contrast, carries significantly higher financial barriers to entry.

Costs Decisions Before the NBRD

To date, the NBRD has issued a costs decision in one case. In that matter, the patent holder had filed an application for preservation of evidence (saisie) and inspection of property under Article 60 of the UPCA. After the two defendants had submitted detailed objections to the application, the patent holder withdrew the request.

The parties were in agreement that the value of the proceedings was below EUR250,000. Referring to the Administrative Committee’s decision of 24 April 2023, the NBRD noted that the applicable cost cap in such cases was EUR38,000 and that, pursuant to Article 1 of the decision, this cap applied regardless of the number of defendants.

The Division ordered the patent holder to reimburse the defendants in an amount just below the cost ceiling – approximately EUR36,000 – along with an additional EUR3,800 for disbursements not covered by the cap.

The costs award is broadly consistent with the UPC’s Guidelines for the Award of Costs, which do not contain separate provisions for evidence preservation proceedings. That said, one might have expected some reference to Article 5 of the Guidelines, which provides that the value of the proceedings in interim measures cases should be set at 66% of what it would otherwise be. Given that preservation measures are generally limited in scope and purpose, they bear similarities to interim relief.

Considering that the application was withdrawn at an early stage, the NBRD’s costs order may be viewed as generous to the defendants, who were awarded compensation close to the maximum recoverable amount.

On the topic of costs, it is also worth noting that in Edwards v Meril, concerning EP 3 769 722, the NBRD held that a third party requesting access to documents in the case was not a party to the proceedings and could therefore not be ordered to bear costs.

Proceedings are still at a relatively early stage and the NBRD has not issued any damages awards to date. There is currently no publicly available guidance from this Division on how damages will be calculated in practice and it remains to be seen what approach the Division will adopt in future decisions on damages.

There are a number of advantages associated with the NBRD.

One particularly notable advantage concerns expert witnesses. The NBRD has proven receptive to oral expert evidence. This was demonstrated, in the case between Abbott and Dexcom, where the court held a dedicated day for the examination of expert witnesses from both parties, including both direct and cross-examination.

Expert witness testimony is particularly helpful in resolving contentious technical arguments when there are irreconcilable differences between expert opinions. By allowing parties to present and cross-examine experts, the approach taken by the NBRD facilitates a more thorough and transparent examination of conflicting technical evidence.

As far as the authors are aware, this was the first time such a hearing occurred before the UPC. It stands in contrast to the approach likely to be adopted by other Divisions of the UPC, which may be more strongly influenced by prevailing Continental European practice – where expert evidence is typically submitted in writing and opportunities for cross-examination are limited or entirely absent.

In most national courts in continental Europe, expert evidence is often submitted in written form and cross-examination is limited, while the practice of live testimony aligns more closely with common law traditions, which offer judges the opportunity to observe and assess the credibility of experts in person.

The Swedish national patent litigation system already provides for the possibility of expert witness hearings, which means that the Swedish presiding judge of the NBRD brought with them practical experience in dealing with live expert testimony.

Another clear advantage lies in the language of proceedings, which is English only before the NBRD. This ensures that a party wishing to litigate in English does not need to be concerned about the risk of proceedings being conducted in, for example, German or another language.

Further, and more generally speaking, parties and legal representatives originating from a legal tradition other than the Continental European – such as the Anglo-American common law tradition – may be expected to feel more at ease before the NBRD of the Unified Patent Court. This division is seated in Sweden, its presiding judge is Swedish, and all hearings conducted thus far have taken place in Stockholm.

Sweden belongs to the Nordic legal tradition, which, while formally part of the broader civil law family, exhibits a number of distinctive features. It combines a strong legislative tradition with a pragmatic and less dogmatic approach to legal interpretation. Case law plays a significant role, and oral pleadings are given much more prominence than in many Continental systems. Oral witness testimony also plays a much more central role. Furthermore, the principle of public access to official documents is deeply embedded in Swedish legal culture, reinforcing transparency in legal proceedings.

A judge’s legal background, professional experience, and general legal outlook inevitably influence not only the interpretation and application of the law, but also the overall conduct of court proceedings. This becomes particularly relevant in international courts like the UPC, where different legal cultures converge. The NBRD appears to reflect these Nordic characteristics in practice. For instance, it appears to issue a greater number of procedural orders per case compared to other Divisions. This supports a clearer understanding of the procedural development in individual cases.

From a psychological standpoint, legal practitioners are naturally more comfortable when operating within a system that reflects the values and structures they are familiar with. Factors such as the format of the hearing, the role of oral argument, and the predictability of the proceedings can significantly affect how confident and effective a party feels in presenting its case. As such, parties from a common law background may find the environment at the NBRD more intuitive and aligned with their expectations – particularly when compared with Divisions that operate under more traditional Continental European procedural norms.

In this respect, the NBRD may serve as a kind of middle ground – combining the structure and codification typical of civil law systems with a practical, open and transparent procedural culture. This combination may make it especially accessible and attractive to international litigants.

Aside from broader economic and political factors, the authors believe that the most significant trends affecting patent litigation in the UPC and in Europe over the next two years will primarily relate to how users perceive the court’s ability to meet expectations in terms of delivering high-quality decisions within the ambitious timelines it has set for itself. The actual cost levels associated with UPC litigation will also become increasingly clear and will likely influence user behaviour significantly. Initial indications suggest that the costs may be considerable, which in itself could impact the incentives to choose the UPC over national alternatives.

Another key factor will likely be the development of the success rate for patent holders in UPC litigation. If patent holders perceive the outcomes to be generally favourable or at least fair and predictable, this will naturally encourage further use of the system.

The stance of the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries will also be crucial. So far, these sectors have shown a degree of caution – often taking a wait-and-see approach. Whether they continue along this path or begin to engage more actively with the UPC will be a defining trend. Their eventual acceptance of the UPC could have a strong influence on the volume and character of litigation before the Court.

The authors also note that recent data from the EPO shows a notable increase in the number of requests for Unitary Patent protection in 2024 compared to 2023. This suggests that patent holders are increasingly viewing the system, and by extension the UPC, in a positive light. Over time, this is likely to translate into a growing number of UPC cases.

A further important development relates to how holders and implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) perceive the UPC as an attractive venue. SEP and FRAND disputes represent a significant proportion of the high-stake patent litigation in Europe. The ability to obtain an injunction with effect across multiple EU member states is potentially a powerful tool for SEP holders, and the initial SEP and FRAND-related decisions issued by the UPC in Philips v Belkin, Panasonic v Oppo and Huawei v Netgear have been a success for the SEP holders. That said, it remains to be seen whether this approach will continue. It is certainly not inconceivable that future outcomes could become significantly more even between SEP holders and implementers.

The role of national patent litigation in Sweden is undergoing transformation and will be influenced by how market participants choose to engage with the new European patent system, particularly the UPC, as previously discussed. Given that the UPC has been operational for a relatively short period, it is still premature to draw definitive conclusions about its overall impact, though it is expected to be substantial.

In Sweden, disputes within the life sciences sector – especially regarding pharmaceutical patents – have historically constituted a substantial portion of patent litigation. Consequently, the stance that the pharmaceutical and life sciences sectors adopt towards the UPC is likely to be the single most critical factor shaping the future landscape of national patent litigation in Sweden.

Another aspect that could influence the role of national patent litigation in Sweden and other European countries moving forward is the extent to which stakeholders consider the recent rulings of the CJEU in C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte and the earlier decision in C-399/21 IRnova, both concerning the international jurisdiction of European courts.

These decisions notably affect patent holders’ enforcement strategies against EU-based infringers and, more specifically, the possibility of consolidating claims of patent infringement across multiple EU and third states within a single infringement proceeding.

The authors’ interpretation of the CJEU’s rulings suggests that they open the door for enforcement of patents in multiple EU member states and even third states through a single national court in an EU member state against an infringing party domiciled in that state. This holds true even when the validity of the patents is challenged. This development enables patent holders to seek injunctions covering multiple jurisdictions through a single legal action, potentially encompassing a vast geographical area.

One of the primary intended advantages of the UPC is the ability for a patent holder to obtain an injunction through a single court process against an infringer that spans a wide geographical area, encompassing multiple states. However, the CJEU’s above-mentioned decisions indicate that such a possibility already exists via national courts, potentially reducing the attractiveness of the UPC in favour of national courts. This is particularly relevant considering that a national court’s jurisdiction could, in certain scenarios, be even more extensive than that of the UPC. For instance, a national court’s jurisdiction includes hearing actions concerning infringement of national patents, and may even extend to national patents granted by a non-EPC state. By contrast, the UPC’s jurisdiction is more narrowly defined in this respect, dedicated solely to European patents (and, of course, European patents with unitary effect).

There is also another point to consider in this context. It is well known that the national German patent litigation system has long been popular among patent holders, owing to various factors. One such factor is the so-called “injunction gap”, which refers to the separation of infringement and invalidity proceedings between different courts, often resulting in the infringement issue being resolved months or even years before the validity issue. While this aspect of the German system has faced criticism, it has also been strategically utilised by patent holders. The potential to separate the infringement issue from the validity issue has been highly attractive for patent holders.

The authors interpret the CJEU’s statements in BSH Hausgeräte and IRnova as strongly emphasising the principle of the defendant’s domicile forum and that it applies unconditionally. Conversely, the principle of exclusive jurisdiction for the courts of the state of registration in matters of validity is emphasised as an exception that must be interpreted narrowly. The fact that the validity of a patent is routinely challenged is something that the court of the defendant’s domicile must simply accommodate when adjudicating the infringement issue. For example, the domicile court may, where appropriate, stay the infringement proceedings if it considers it justified.

This implies that the CJEU envisions a clear separation between infringement and invalidity, not only between different courts (as in the German national court system) but also between different states. This separation between infringement and invalidity could allow patent holders to create circumstances where an injunction gap becomes possible, at least for patents issued in states covered by the Brussels I Recast Regulation (and/or the Lugano Convention); ie, not “third states” according to the terminology of the CJEU in BSH Hausgeräte.

Similarly to what was discussed above, it is also conceivable that scenarios exist where a patent holder’s opportunity to leverage an injunction gap is greater or more significant before a national court than before the UPC. This would in such cases argue in favour of national courts over the UPC.

It is plausible that patent holders will consider this aspect when devising strategies for disputes of an international nature, potentially leading to an increase in proceedings before national courts, both in Sweden and elsewhere.

No content provided in this jurisdiction.