统一专利法院（UPC）运行两年，如何影响全球创新格局？

摘要：统一专利法院（UPC）的成立，标志着欧洲专利体系迎来历史性变革。作为一项具有里程碑意义的司法创新，UPC不仅优化了欧洲专利诉讼机制，为全球创新生态注入新动能。在2025年新加坡第十四届“IP Week @ SG”知识产权周期间，知产前沿新媒体独家专访了UPC上

统一专利法院（UPC）的成立，标志着欧洲专利体系迎来历史性变革。作为一项具有里程碑意义的司法创新，UPC不仅优化了欧洲专利诉讼机制，为全球创新生态注入新动能。在2025年新加坡第十四届“IP Week @ SG”知识产权周期间，知产前沿新媒体独家专访了UPC上诉法院院长法官Dr. Klaus Grabinski。Dr. Klaus Grabinski分享了UPC运行两年以来的表现、其对欧洲及全球创新生态的贡献，以及未来UPC如何应对人工智能等新兴技术带来的挑战。

UPC“初考”成绩单：案件数量与多样性超预期

谈及UPC运行近两年的表现，Dr. Klaus Grabinski给出了积极评价。他透露，截至2025年6月30日，UPC一审法院已受理了813起诉讼案件，涵盖351起专利侵权诉讼、188起专利无效反诉、68起独立无效诉讼、94起临时禁令申请等多种类型，案件不仅数量可观，且覆盖面广泛，涉及电信、医疗器械、制药、机械工程等多个技术领域。

值得关注的是，UPC的诉讼主体既有在美英等国进行平行诉讼的跨国巨头，也有涉案价值较低的中小型企业，这表明UPC在建立初期便成功吸引了全球创新者的关注，它正逐渐成为一个服务于各类规模企业和各种技术领域的法院。

“一站式”司法：赋能欧洲专利，吸引全球创新者

统一专利法院的核心优势在于其高效的“一站式”司法服务。Dr. Klaus Grabinski介绍，UPC的18个成员国覆盖了欧盟27个成员国约四分之三的国内生产总值（GDP），几乎涵盖了欧盟单一市场的核心经济区域，这为专利权人提供了前所未有的便利。

Dr. Klaus Grabinski进一步解释，UPC的“一站式”司法服务彻底改变了传统的欧洲专利模式。此前，专利权人需在多个国家法院分别提起诉讼，耗时费力。如今，专利权人只需在UPC提起单一诉讼，即可在所有成员国范围内强制执行其欧洲专利或具有单一效力的欧洲专利。这种高效机制不仅显著降低了诉讼成本、提升了专利保护的确定性，还使得欧洲在专利执行方面，能够与中国、美国等拥有庞大市场的司法管辖区处于同等竞争地位。

同时，对于来自中国、美国、日本等非欧洲市场的专利权人，UPC的吸引力也十分明显，全球的创新者们可通过UPC高效维护其在欧洲市场的专利权益，进而优化全球知识产权战略布局。

新兴技术带来挑战与机遇：AI与SEP、FRAND

在知识产权领域，人工智能（AI）和标准必要专利（SEP）及公平、合理和非歧视（FRAND）许可纠纷是当前最具前沿性的挑战。

关于AI，当前专利法面临两大核心问题：一是AI技术本身是否可以作为专利保护的客体；二是AI的运用如何影响专利创造性步骤的评估。他坦言，AI的“黑箱”特性可能对专利说明书的充分披露要求构成挑战。UPC如何应对这些问题，仍需等待首批相关案件的审理结果。但Dr. Klaus Grabinski同时表示，在可预见的未来，核心司法活动仍将由人类法官而不是AI主导，确保司法裁决的专业性和公正性。

在审理SEP与FRAND纠纷方面，UPC已展现出其作为全球重要司法平台的潜力。截至2025年5月，UPC已受理23起SEP/FRAND相关案件，部分案件已达成和解，曼海姆和慕尼黑地方法院也已作出初步裁决，这些早期裁决为UPC在SEP领域的判例法奠定了基础。他特别提到，UPC在审理此类案件时，将严格遵循欧洲法院（CJEU）的关键判例，如具有里程碑意义的华为诉中兴案，以确保裁决的公平性和一致性。

UPC的未来：发展判例法、技术创新与国际合作并重

展望未来，Dr. Klaus Grabinski表示，UPC的首要任务是继续发展判例法。UPC虽然处于发展初期，但并非“从零开始”，我们能够借鉴成员国国内法院和欧洲专利局上诉委员会的丰富判例资源。这些判例虽不具法律约束力，但具有重要的“说服力”，能够影响UPC的司法决策。

在技术应用方面，AI已在UPC的语言翻译和裁决文件匿名化等辅助领域发挥作用。未来，AI可能在更多服务领域得到应用，但Dr. Klaus Grabinski重申，专利诉讼的复杂性和司法公正性要求核心裁决工作仍由专业法官主导。

当谈及UPC与中国司法系统的合作潜力时，Dr. Klaus Grabinski表示高度认同。他指出，近年来，中国通过设立专门的知识产权法院和加强专利保护，展现了在知识产权领域的重要进步。中欧两地法官可通过学术会议、交流项目等形式相互学习，分享司法经验。这不仅有助于提升双方司法能力，还能推动全球专利法的协调统一，为专利权人和利益相关者创造更大价值。

作为“IP Week @ SG 2025”的重要嘉宾，Dr. Klaus Grabinski在“从法庭到法庭：知识产权的透视”论坛上，与来自不同司法管辖区的法官共同探讨了知识产权领域的最新趋势和跨国司法影响。本次知识产权周吸引了来自近40个国家的5000名代表，彰显了知识产权在推动全球创新中的核心作用。

本次专访中，Dr. Klaus Grabinski为我们描绘了统一专利法院作为全球知识产权领域的关键参与者的影响力与愿景，从高效的“一站式”司法服务到应对AI等新兴技术的挑战，UPC正以开放和前瞻的姿态，助力欧洲乃至全球创新生态的蓬勃发展。对于中国企业而言，UPC不仅是一个保护知识产权的新平台，更是融入全球创新网络的战略机遇。

附：Dr. Klaus Grabinski专访全文

IP Forefront：The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has been formally operational for nearly two years. How would you evaluate its overall performance during this initial phase? Do the number and types of cases accepted, as well as its market adoption, align with your initial expectations?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

Indeed, the UPC has been in operation for just over two years. During this time (as of 30 June 2025), a total of 813 actions have been brought to the UPC Court of First Instance, out of which 351 have been infringement actions, 188 counterclaims for revocation, 68 stand-alone revocation actions, 94 actions for provisional injunctions, and the rest is distributed among other types of actions. The proceedings range from disputes between large companies with parallel litigations in other jurisdictions like the US or UK, to disputes between small and medium-sized companies with rather small values of litigation. The disputes concern all kinds of technologies, from telecommunication to medical devices and from pharmaceuticals to mechanical embodiments to only mention some of them.

Against this background, I am quite satisfied with the development so far, both in terms of the number of cases and that it became a court for all sizes of companies and for all kinds of technologies.

IP Forefront：Beyond fulfilling its core judicial functions, how is the UPC positioned to influence the broader innovation ecosystem in Europe, particularly in terms of incentivizing R&D investment?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

As the 18 Member States of the UPC cover approximately three-quarters of the gross domestic product generated on the territory of all 27 Member States of the European Union, it seems to be fair to say that the jurisdiction of the UPC covers a large part of the EU single market.

The UPC, as a common court of its Member States, allows companies and individuals that have protected their technical innovations by a European patent, and, in particular, by a European patent with unitary effect, to enforce their claims against infringers in a single dispute with effect in all UPC Member States (one stop shop only). These users are no longer limited to bring an action for infringement of a European patent in a national court with effect only in the respective national jurisdiction.

IP Forefront：What do you identify as the most pressing emerging trends and challenges in the field of intellectual property? How will the UPC system address these challenges?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

One challenge is how Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be assessed in the field of patent law. This concerns, on the one hand, the question of the extent to which AI can be the subject-matter of patent protection. But it also raises the question of the extent to which the use of AI influences the assessment of a patent claim as being based on an inventive step. AI may also affect the disclosure of the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to be carried out by a person skilled in the art as the application of AI may function like a black box.

Another challenge is the handling of standard-essential patent (SEP)/ Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) litigations that are usually quite complex as they do not only concern the infringement and the validity of the patent but also FRAND licensing including questions as how to deal with confidential documents (e.g. comparable license agreements).

How the UPC will address these challenges? This remains to be seen when the first cases will raise the issues I mentioned regarding AI.

As to SEP/FRAND related disputes, already quite a few (in the first 19 months 23 cases according to a study published by the European Patent Office in May 2025) have been brought to the UPC, sometimes in parallel to similar litigations filed in other jurisdictions. Some of these cases have been settled before the Court of First Instance could decide but the Mannheim and the Munich Local Division of the UPC have also already issued first decisions on the merits.

IP Forefront：For patent holders outside Europe, such as those from China, what strategic value and distinct advantages does opting into the UPC system offer?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

In countries with large markets like Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea and the US, companies can protect their technical innovations by a patent that covers the entire market.

In Europe this was different until the UPC became operational on 1 June 2023. Before, innovators could make use of the centralized granting proceeding at the European Patent Office, but post grant often enforced the European patent in parallel disputes in the national courts. parallel disputes in the national courts. As from 1 June 2023 it became possible to enforce a European patent with effect in all UPC Member States by bringing an action for infringement in only one court, the UPC.

This puts Europe, at least as far as the UPC Member States are concerned, on a level playing field with the other large markets mentioned.

IP Forefront：As the UPC is widely regarded as a pivotal forum for global Standard Essential Patent (SEP) and FRAND licensing disputes, what key factors or judicial principles will the Court prioritize when adjudicating SEP-related cases to ensure the fairness and effectiveness of its rulings?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

Of course, general judicial principles, like the principles of proportionality and fairness apply in SEP and FRAND disputes like in disputes that “only” concern the infringement of a patent but is not a standard essential patent.

Let me also mention that the UPC like any national court of an EU Member State is bound to the interpretation of EU law given by the European Court of Justice (CJEU). For

example, in the context of SEP and FRAND disputes the Huawei/ZTE decision of the CJEU is of particular importance.

As mentioned, first decisions in SEP and FRAND disputes have been rendered by the Mannheim and the Munich Local Divisions of the UPC which provide a first indication of what the UPC case law in SEP and FRAND disputes may look like in the future, although, of course, more decisions and in particular decisions from the UPC Court of Appeal must still be awaited. The UPC Court of Appeal already issued orders concerning confidentiality requirements in the context of FRAND disputes pending in the UPC Court of First Instance.

IP Forefront：China has established specialized intellectual property courts and significantly strengthened patent protection in recent years. In your view, is there potential for mutual learning and collaboration between the UPC and China’s judicial system?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

I agree that mutual learning and cooperation between the UPC and China’s judicial system in the field of IP law can be very beneficial for both sides. Not only can judge from China and Europe learn a lot from each other, for example at judges’ conferences, but it can also help to promote the harmonization of patent law for the benefit of users and stakeholders in both jurisdictions.

IP Forefront：Looking ahead, what are the priority initiatives for the UPC in its next phase of development? How is the UPC preparing to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence?

Dr. Klaus Grabinski

Being a patent court of several States that is still in its early days, it is key for the UPC to develop its case law. In the first two years the court has already issued a lot of orders and decisions, yet significant legal issues, remain to be decided. However, when further developing its case law the UPC will not be starting from scratch but will be able to build on the case law of the national courts of its Member States and the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Even though the case law of the national courts and the Boards of Appeal is in no way binding for the UPC, it certainly has “persuasive authority” and, as such, may influence the decision making of the UPC to quite some extent.

Artificial intelligence (AI) plays currently a role at the UPC when it comes to language translation and the anonymization of court decisions and court files.

It is not unlikely that AI will also be used as a smart tool in other service fields, but for the time being, I would not expect that this will be the case in the core area of judicial activity, not only because patent disputes are among the most complex legal and factual disputes in court but also as a matter of principle. So don’t worry that patent disputes will be decided by robots in the foreseeable future.