Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 JULY 2023

Demystifying The UPC And The Unitary Patent

Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Contributor
Arnold & Porter

Arnold & Porter

With over 1,000 lawyers across 16 offices worldwide, Arnold & Porter is renowned for its...

View firm profile
Explore more from Arnold & Porter

After many years of debate, negotiations and work, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the unitary patent system were finally launched on 1 June 2023.

GlobalIntellectual Property
Beatriz San Martin
Beatriz San Martin
Shama Aktar
Shama Aktar
Author LinkedIn connections

Answers to Some Common Questions

After many years of debate, negotiations and work, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the unitary patent system were finally launched on 1 June 2023. In this publication, we demystify confusing terminology and misconceptions by providing answers to common questions on the UPC and the unitary patent system.

1.What is a Unitary Patent?

A 'European patent with unitary effect' (colloquially referred to as a Unitary Patent (UP)) is a European patent (EP) granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) under the rules and procedures of the European Patent Convention (EPC), where after grant and at the patentee's request, the EP goes through a separate post-grant procedure to obtain unitary effect in participating member states and thereby become a UP.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - September 2026

The USPTO has released its latest economic impact report on IP-intensive industries, announced a new community engagement office in North Carolina, and issued several administrative updates including relief for Japanese applicants affected by a severe earthquake. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has also designated new precedential and informative decisions addressing obviousness-type double patenting and Markush groupings.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

Pseudonymised, Not Anonymous: What The Italian Garante’s €7 Million IQVIA Fine Means For Health Data

The Italian data protection authority fined IQVIA Solutions Italy €7 million for treating patient records as anonymous when they were actually pseudonymised personal data subject to GDPR. This decision demonstrates regulators' strict interpretation of what constitutes personal data, even as the EU considers narrowing this definition through the Digital Omnibus reforms.
GlobalPrivacy
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

Generative AI Is Reshaping The Defense Of Complex Litigation

Generative AI is transforming litigation defense by enabling in-house legal teams to manage costs and complexity more effectively across the entire case lifecycle. From early research and drafting through expert witness strategy and trial preparation, AI tools are helping defense teams work faster and more consistently. How are these technologies reshaping the way sophisticated counsel approaches multidistrict litigation, mass torts, and large-scale document management?
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

The FCC’s Next Move On Supply Chain Security: What Manufacturers Need To Know

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed sweeping changes to its equipment authorization program that would reorganize security restrictions around where devices are manufactured rather than who makes them. These new measures could fundamentally reshape how communications equipment—from smartphones to data center hardware—enters the U.S. market, with significant implications for manufacturers relying on foreign production.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

District Court Enjoins EPA From Reclassifying California’s Clean Air Act Waivers

A federal district court has preliminarily enjoined the EPA from reclassifying California's Clean Air Act preemption waiver orders as "rules" subject to the Congressional Review Act. The court found that EPA's reclassification likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the agency's authority, though the order does not prevent Congress from proceeding with pending disapproval resolutions.
United StatesEnvironment
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

China Compliance Update: Anti-Corruption — Summer 2026

Chinese authorities issued the first major update to criminal bribery laws in a decade, lowered thresholds for private-sector corruption crimes, and maintained aggressive enforcement against both bribe givers and receivers. Three senior officials faced prosecution in the first half of 2026, with investigations reaching back decades and emphasizing "family-style corruption" involving relatives who exploited officials' influence for personal gain.
ChinaCriminal Law
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

Before The FCA: CMS And HHS Leaders Discuss Administrative Tools Leading Healthcare Fraud Enforcement

Federal healthcare fraud enforcement leaders reveal a strategic shift at CMS and HHS-OIG, where administrative sanctions—including enrollment moratoria, revocations, and exclusions—now serve as the first line of defense against fraud, often preceding False Claims Act litigation. The panel discussion at AHLA's Fraud and Compliance Forum outlined how agencies are leveraging data analytics, financial crimes intelligence, and cross-program coordination to identify and shut down fraudulent providers
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

Sterling v. City Of Jackson And The Limits Of Substantive Due Process In Environmental Harm Cases

The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Sterling v. City of Jackson tests whether residents exposed to lead-contaminated municipal drinking water can sue under Section 1983 for substantive due process violations. In a 10-5 ruling, the court held that environmental harms caused by government mismanagement belong to tort law and the political process, not constitutional claims, creating a significant circuit split with implications for how environmental compliance failures by public officials are litigated.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

S.D.N.Y. Upholds New York’s Social Media Content Moderation Disclosure Law

A federal court in New York upheld a state law requiring social media platforms to disclose their content moderation policies, applying a deferential First Amendment standard. This decision directly conflicts with a Ninth Circuit ruling on California's similar statute, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review on whether such disclosure requirements constitute protected commercial speech or impermissible compelled expression.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

All Eyes On Personalized Pricing: What Stakeholders Need To Know

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed a new enforcement policy targeting personalized pricing practices, signaling heightened scrutiny of businesses that use consumer data to set individualized prices. As states simultaneously advance their own surveillance pricing legislation—ranging from disclosure mandates to outright bans—companies face an increasingly complex regulatory landscape that demands...
United StatesConsumer Protection
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter