Italy 2026, UPC vs Italian Courts: Forum Choice, Costs and Remedies for Patent Owners

The question of UPC vs Italy patent litigation 2026 has become unavoidable for every patent owner with European rights covering the Italian market. Two structural fee changes, the Unified Patent Court fee overhaul effective 1 January 2026 and the European Patent Office fee increases effective 1 April 2026, have fundamentally altered the cost calculus that underpins forum choice. Meanwhile, the Milan Central Division and the Milan Local Division have built a meaningful body of decisions since the UPC opened its doors in June 2023, giving practitioners real data on speed, injunctive practice and cost awards.

This guide delivers the practical framework that patent owners, IP counsel and in-house general counsel need to decide where, when and how to enforce patents in Italy and across Europe in 2026.

Executive Summary, Who Should Read This and 60-Second Takeaways

This article is for patent holders, licensing executives and litigation partners who must choose between the UPC and Italian national courts for enforcement in 2026. It is equally relevant to defendants weighing counterclaim strategies and opt-out decisions. The core changes that drive this analysis are set out below.

• UPC fee overhaul (1 January 2026). Filing fees, value-based fees and interim-relief fees have all risen materially, making low-value and single-country cases more expensive at the UPC than before.
• EPO fee increase (1 April 2026). Higher renewal and procedural fees increase the total cost of maintaining European patents, influencing decisions about national validations versus unitary patent strategies and the timing of enforcement.
• Milan UPC caseflow (2023–2026). The Milan Local Division and Milan Central Division have issued a growing number of orders and decisions on preliminary injunctions, cost allocation and jurisdictional challenges, generating Italy-specific forum-choice precedent.

Decision snapshot: If the dispute is Italy-only and the patent value is moderate, Italian national courts remain cost-effective and fast for preliminary relief. If the dispute spans multiple UPC member states and the patent value justifies higher court fees, the UPC offers broader cross-border enforcement in a single action. The sections below provide the numbers, the remedy comparison and a seven-point tactical checklist to guide that decision.

What Changed in 2026, UPC Fees and EPO Fee Rises

UPC Fee Overhaul: Effective 1 January 2026

The UPC Administrative Committee adopted a revised fee schedule that took effect on 1 January 2026. Industry observers have described this as a “major financial overhaul” that significantly increased court fees across nearly every procedural category. The increases reflect the court’s move towards financial self-sustainability as it exits its start-up phase. The practical effect is that patent owners must now factor meaningfully higher UPC fees 2026 into any enforcement budget.

Note: The figures above reflect the general magnitude of increases reported in published commentary. Rights-holders should consult the official UPC fee schedule for exact amounts applicable to their specific claim-value band.

EPO Fee Increase: Effective 1 April 2026

The European Patent Office implemented fee increases effective 1 April 2026, covering renewal fees, filing and search fees, and various procedural fees. Higher renewal costs have a compounding effect on multi-country patent portfolios, particularly for patents validated in several EPC states. For patent owners considering enforcement timing, the EPO fee increase April 2026 creates an incentive to align renewal payment schedules with litigation strategy, paying renewals before the increase takes effect where possible, and weighing whether consolidation into a unitary patent (where eligible) reduces total maintenance costs.

Patent owners should consult the EPO’s published fee schedule for exact updated figures, as individual line items vary. The practical consequence is that the total lifecycle cost of a European patent portfolio is rising, and this must be factored into enforcement ROI calculations, particularly when deciding whether to invest in litigation or let marginal patents lapse.

Unified Patent Court Jurisdiction and Practical Impacts for Italy

UPC Competence: Unitary Patents and Classic European Patents

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction over both unitary patents (registered under the unitary patent regulation) and classic European patents that have not been opted out of UPC jurisdiction during the transitional period. Italy has been a participating member state since the court’s launch in June 2023, with both a Milan Local Division and, since Milan was designated as a seat of the Central Division, a section of the Central Division handling revocation and certain infringement-related actions.

• Opt-out status is determinative. If a European patent validated in Italy has been opted out, it remains subject to Italian national court jurisdiction only. If no opt-out has been filed, both the UPC and Italian courts may have jurisdiction, creating a forum-choice decision for the patentee.
• Cross-border reach. A single UPC infringement action can result in injunctive relief enforceable across all UPC member states where the patent is validated, a capability Italian national courts cannot match. Industry observers note that the UPC’s cross-border patent enforcement capacity has become one of its most defining features.

Milan Central Division: 2026 Caseflow and Key Developments

The Milan Central Division has emerged as an active forum. By early 2026, the UPC’s official registry listed multiple decisions and orders emanating from Milan, covering both substantive patent issues and procedural matters such as cost allocation. Notably, a cost decision from the Milan Local Division dated 10 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1738/2025) addressed the consequences of an appeal reversing the original decision, holding that the reversal invalidated the initial cost order under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.

Separately, UPC decisions in March 2026 raised jurisdictional objections relevant to Italian defendants. In one reported case, a defendant argued that the alleged infringement took place in Italy only and that it was domiciled in Italy, requesting referral to the Milan Local Division rather than proceeding in another UPC division. These decisions illustrate that forum choice within the UPC system, not just between the UPC and national courts, is becoming an active area of tactical litigation in patent litigation Italy.

Italian National Courts, Remedies, Timing and Costs in Patent Litigation Italy

Italian national courts remain a powerful forum for patent enforcement, particularly where the dispute is confined to the Italian market. Italy’s specialised IP sections, notably the Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Specializzata in materia di Impresa, have deep experience in patent cases and offer a well-developed procedural toolkit.

Injunctions Italy: Preliminary and Permanent Relief

Italian courts can grant preliminary injunctions (provvedimenti cautelari) on an expedited basis. In urgent cases involving clear infringement and a risk of irreparable harm, an ex parte order can issue within days. Inter partes preliminary proceedings typically conclude within a few weeks to a few months. Permanent injunctions follow the merits trial, which in complex patent cases may take 18–36 months from filing to first-instance judgment.

Damages and Other Remedies

Italian law allows the patent owner to claim lost profits, a reasonable royalty, or (where applicable) the infringer’s profits. Border seizure measures (sequestro) are available and can be combined with customs enforcement under EU Regulation 608/2013. The Italian court system also permits discovery-like mechanisms such as the descrizione (a court-ordered detailed inspection and description of the allegedly infringing products or processes), which is a powerful evidence-gathering tool.

Court fees in Italy are modest by European standards. The contributo unificato (unified court fee) for patent cases is based on the value of the claim but is materially lower than post-2026 UPC fees for equivalent claim values. Counsel fees, expert fees and translation costs add to the total budget but, for Italy-only disputes, the all-in cost is typically lower than an equivalent UPC action, especially after the 2026 UPC fee increases.

Cost Comparison, UPC vs Italy in 2026: Worked Examples

The UPC vs Italy patent litigation 2026 cost comparison depends on several variables: claim value, number of jurisdictions, case complexity and whether interim relief is sought. Below are two worked examples modelling the key cost buckets.

Worked Example 1: SME Patent Owner, Italy-Only Dispute (Claim Value €500,000)

For an SME enforcing a patent worth approximately €500,000 in the Italian market only, the Italian national court route costs roughly 40–55% of a comparable UPC action. The UPC fee increases effective 1 January 2026 have widened this gap considerably compared to 2024–2025.

Worked Example 2: Multinational Pharma, Multi-Country Dispute (Claim Value €5 Million, 4 UPC States)

For a multinational with significant exposure across four or more UPC member states, the UPC’s single-proceeding model remains cost-efficient despite higher court fees. The savings on duplicated counsel, expert and coordination costs far outweigh the increase in UPC court fees. The tipping point, where UPC becomes cheaper than parallel national actions, shifts depending on the number of jurisdictions involved. Early indications suggest that for two or fewer states, national proceedings may still be cheaper; for three or more, the UPC typically wins on total cost.

Cost Sensitivity and Case Duration

Remedies and Enforcement Comparison: UPC vs Italy

The choice between the Unified Patent Court and Italian national courts ultimately hinges on the remedy the patent owner needs and where it must be enforced. The table below provides a practical side-by-side comparison for the key remedy categories relevant to forum choice EU patents.

The practical takeaway is clear. Where the patent owner needs cross-border relief across multiple European markets, the UPC delivers a single enforceable order, a major strategic advantage that Italian national courts cannot replicate. Conversely, where the patent owner needs fast ex parte relief in Italy specifically, or relies on the descrizione procedure for evidence preservation, Italian national courts offer procedural tools with decades of established practice. Industry observers expect that sophisticated litigants will increasingly pursue coordinated strategies across both forums rather than treating the UPC and national courts as mutually exclusive choices.

Tactical Checklist, When to Sue in the UPC vs Italy

The following seven-point decision flow provides a structured approach to forum choice for European patent enforcement involving Italy in 2026. Patent owners and their counsel should work through each factor sequentially.

1. Opt-out status. Has the European patent been opted out of UPC jurisdiction? If yes, the UPC is unavailable, sue in Italian national courts (or withdraw the opt-out, noting the procedural requirements and timing).
2. Geographic scope of infringement. Is the infringement confined to Italy, or does it span multiple UPC member states? Multi-country infringement strongly favours the UPC for efficiency and cross-border relief.
3. Claim value. Is the claim value below €1 million? After the 2026 UPC fee increases, lower-value disputes are proportionally more expensive at the UPC. Italian courts may be more cost-effective.
4. Urgency and interim relief needs. Does the case require ex parte relief within days? Italian courts have a stronger track record for ultra-fast preliminary orders. UPC interim measures are available but typically proceed inter partes.
5. Evidence preservation. Is a descrizione or surprise inspection needed? The Italian procedure is well-established and highly effective. The UPC’s evidence preservation mechanisms are still developing.
6. Counterparty location and assets. Is the infringer domiciled in Italy with assets only in Italy? If so, Italian courts may be more practical. If the infringer operates across multiple UPC states, the UPC’s single-proceeding model avoids duplicative enforcement.
7. Risk tolerance. What is the client’s appetite for adverse cost awards? UPC cost orders can be substantial (as illustrated by the Milan LD cost decisions in early 2026). Italian cost exposure is typically more predictable and moderate.

Forum Recommendation by Fact Pattern

For a deeper dive into UPC strategy in Milan, including Central Division forum selection and opt-out timing, see the related analysis on this site.

Practical Next Steps: Opt-Out, Timing and Coordination with Prosecution and Renewals

The convergence of UPC fee changes and EPO fee increases in early 2026 demands immediate portfolio housekeeping. The following timeline highlights the key actions patent owners should prioritise.

Timely action on these steps, particularly the opt-out audit and renewal cost review, can save significant expenditure and ensure that the right forum is available when enforcement becomes necessary. Consult the international intellectual property guide for broader portfolio management context.

Conclusion

The landscape of UPC vs Italy patent litigation 2026 is defined by higher costs at both the UPC and the EPO, a maturing body of Milan-based UPC decisions, and an Italian national court system that continues to offer fast, cost-effective relief for domestic disputes. Patent owners cannot afford a one-size-fits-all approach. The right forum depends on the geographic scope of infringement, claim value, urgency, evidence needs, and risk appetite, all factors that the seven-point checklist in this guide is designed to address.

For rights-holders with European patents covering Italy, the immediate priorities are auditing opt-out status, reviewing renewal payment timing in light of the April 2026 EPO fee rises, and developing a coordinated enforcement strategy that leverages the strengths of both the UPC and Italian courts. Those seeking tailored guidance can find a patent litigation lawyer through the Global Law Experts directory.

Sources

1. Unified Patent Court, Decisions & Orders
2. European Patent Office, Important Fees
3. Secerna, Major Financial Overhaul: Significant UPC Fee Increase Effective 1 January 2026
4. Chambers Practice Guides, Patent Litigation 2026: Italy
5. ICLG, Patents Laws and Regulations Report: Italy
6. Hoyng Rokh Monegier, UPC Unfiltered: UPC Decisions Week 11, 2026
7. UPC.law, Milan Local Division Decision Summaries
8. Bird &