How to Enforce Patents in Romania in 2026: UPC, Doctrine of Equivalents & Spcs, a Practical Guide

Patent enforcement in Romania in 2026 demands a fundamentally different strategic calculus than it did even two years ago. Romania’s accession to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, effective 1 September 2024, means that rights-holders can now pursue pan-European remedies through a centralised court for the first time, while national Romanian patent courts remain fully operational for domestically validated European patents and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). The growing body of UPC case law on the doctrine of equivalents, provisional measures and damages is already reshaping how infringement claims are framed and defended across the continent.

This guide provides general counsel, IP managers and in-house teams with the practical decision framework, checklists and procedural detail they need to choose the right forum, prepare the right evidence and enforce effectively in Romania’s post-UPC landscape.

Background: Romania, the Unitary Patent and the UPC timeline

Key dates and legal framework

Understanding the sequence of events that brought Romania into the UPC system is essential for assessing which patents qualify for which enforcement route. The table below summarises the critical milestones.

What patents are affected

Two categories of patent rights now coexist in Romania and understanding the distinction is the first step in any patent enforcement Romania 2026 UPC analysis:

• European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patents). These are European patents granted by the EPO for which the proprietor has requested unitary effect. Since 1 September 2024, unitary effect extends to Romania. These patents fall under UPC jurisdiction exclusively (unless the proprietor has opted out during the transitional period).
• Nationally validated European patents and Romanian national patents. European patents validated in Romania under the traditional route, as well as patents granted directly by the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM), remain subject to Romanian national court jurisdiction. During the transitional period, European patents that have not been opted out may also be litigated at the UPC.

The interaction between these two categories, and the transitional opt-out mechanism, is the single most important variable in forum choice patent enforcement decisions involving Romania.

Enforcement routes for patent enforcement in Romania 2026: UPC vs national courts

When a UPC action is available

A patentee may bring proceedings before the Unified Patent Court in respect of patents covering Romania in three scenarios:

• Unitary Patents. All Unitary Patents granted after 1 June 2023 that include Romania in their territorial scope (i.e., those granted after 1 September 2024, or earlier grants where unitary effect was registered before Romania’s accession but subsequently extended) are within exclusive UPC jurisdiction.
• European patents (bundle) without an opt-out. During the seven-year transitional period, traditionally validated European patents covering Romania can be litigated at the UPC, unless the proprietor has registered an opt-out under Article 83 of the UPC Agreement.
• SPCs derived from the above patents. While SPCs remain national rights, the UPC’s competence over the underlying patent can create jurisdictional complexity. Industry observers expect the boundary of UPC competence over SPC-related matters to be tested further in 2026 litigation.

How national rights interact with Unitary Patents

Patentees who hold both a Unitary Patent and separately validated national patents in Romania face a coordination challenge. The Unitary Patent cannot coexist with a national validation of the same European patent in the same territory. Where a patentee chose unitary effect, the national Romanian validation (if any existed) ceases to have effect for Romania. For patent portfolios that predate Romania’s accession, the traditional nationally validated European patent remains the enforceable right, and Romanian patent courts retain exclusive jurisdiction unless the patent has not been opted out of the UPC.

Tactical factors in choosing a forum

The choice between the UPC and Romanian national courts is rarely binary. Practitioners should weigh the following factors systematically:

• Geographic scope of infringement. If infringing activity extends beyond Romania into other UPC Member States, a UPC action delivers centralised, cross-border relief. For purely Romanian infringement, national courts may be more efficient.
• Speed to injunction. Early UPC practice suggests that provisional measures, particularly applications for the award of an interim injunction (AASI), can proceed rapidly in high-value cases. Romanian national courts, while capable of granting interim relief, have historically operated on longer procedural timelines.
• Cost exposure. UPC proceedings carry potentially higher upfront costs (court fees scale with the value in dispute), but a single proceeding can replace multiple national actions. National Romanian proceedings are generally less expensive on a per-case basis.
• Precedent risk. A UPC decision on validity or infringement has pan-European effect. A negative outcome at the UPC is therefore more consequential than a loss in Romanian national proceedings alone.
• Evidence and discovery. The UPC’s Rules of Procedure include mechanisms for evidence preservation and production that may be broader than those available in Romanian civil procedure. Patentees with complex evidentiary needs should evaluate which forum offers better tools.
• Technical expertise. UPC panels include technically qualified judges. Romanian patent courts draw on court-appointed technical experts but may lack the same degree of specialised patent adjudication infrastructure.

UPC vs Romanian national courts, a decision checklist

The following comparison table distils the key differences between the two forums across the issues that most often determine patent enforcement strategy in Romania in 2026.

Case-study scenarios

Scenario 1: SME with Romania-only sales. A Romanian manufacturer is accused of infringing a nationally validated European patent. The patentee’s commercial interest is limited to the Romanian market. In this case, Romanian national courts are the likely practical choice, lower costs, territorial focus, and no risk of a pan-European validity challenge that could undermine the patent elsewhere.

Scenario 2: Multinational with EU-wide exposure. An electronics company holds a Unitary Patent and discovers infringing imports entering Romania, Poland and Germany. A UPC action offers a single proceeding with injunctive relief covering all three territories, avoiding the cost and coordination burden of three parallel national actions. Forum choice patent enforcement analysis strongly favours the UPC here.

Scenario 3: Pharma patentee with SPC. A pharmaceutical company holds an SPC in Romania derived from a European patent. Because SPCs are national rights, SPC litigation in Romania must proceed before Romanian courts. If the underlying European patent is also being challenged at the UPC, the patentee must coordinate both proceedings carefully to avoid inconsistent outcomes on validity.

Doctrine of equivalents and claim construction, practical impact on patent enforcement in Romania

UPC precedents shaping the analysis (2025–2026)

The doctrine of equivalents, the principle that infringement can be found even where the accused product or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, provided it achieves substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, has been a focal point of early UPC jurisprudence. The UPC’s published decisions and orders reveal a court actively defining the boundaries of equivalents analysis across multiple technical fields.

Industry observers note several emerging themes from the 2025–2026 UPC case law:

• Function-way-result test dominance. The UPC has generally applied a structured function-way-result analysis, drawing on the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC. This contrasts with some national courts’ more holistic or outcome-focused approaches.
• Prosecution history relevance. Several UPC decisions have considered the prosecution history of the patent at the EPO, particularly where the patentee narrowed claims during examination. Early indications suggest the UPC is willing to limit equivalents where the patentee deliberately disclaimed subject matter.
• Technical expert input. The UPC’s technically qualified judges bring in-house expertise to equivalents analysis, reducing reliance on party-appointed experts. This tends to produce more technically rigorous, and sometimes narrower, equivalents findings than jurisdictions where generalist judges depend heavily on external expert reports.

How Romanian courts have historically treated equivalents

Romanian patent courts have traditionally applied the doctrine of equivalents Romania practitioners are familiar with: a relatively broad approach influenced by the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC, but without the depth of published case law seen in Germany or the Netherlands. Romanian decisions on equivalents have generally been fact-specific, with courts relying heavily on court-appointed technical experts to assess whether an accused embodiment falls within the scope of protection.

The likely practical effect of the growing UPC case law will be twofold. First, Romanian judges hearing national patent cases will increasingly look to UPC precedent as persuasive authority, particularly where the same patent family is at issue. Second, defendants in Romanian proceedings will cite UPC decisions that narrow equivalents scope to argue for non-infringement, while patentees will cite expansive UPC rulings to argue the reverse. The result is a more dynamic and less predictable doctrine of equivalents Romania landscape than existed before 2024.

For practitioners, the action item is clear: any infringement analysis for a Romanian patent dispute must now include a review of relevant UPC decisions on equivalents, even where the case will be heard in a Romanian national court. Ignoring UPC precedent risks being blindsided by arguments the opposing party will certainly raise.

Remedies in Romania in 2026, injunctions, provisional measures, damages and accounting

Injunctions and AASIs

Patentees enforcing in Romania can seek injunctive relief through two channels. At the UPC, applications for provisional measures, including the AASI (Application for the Award of an Interim Injunction), can be filed on an urgent basis, with decisions possible within weeks. The UPC Rules of Procedure require the applicant to demonstrate the validity of the patent, infringement, urgency and a balance of interests. At the national level, Romanian civil procedure permits interim injunctions (ordonanță președințială) where the applicant shows urgency and the risk of imminent, irreparable harm.

Patent damages in Romania: legal standard and evidence

Damages in Romanian patent courts are assessed on a compensatory basis, with courts considering lost profits, unjust enrichment and reasonable royalty as alternative calculation methods. To pursue patent damages in Romania effectively, patentees should prepare the following evidence package:

• Sales and revenue data, the patentee’s own sales figures and market share in Romania, demonstrating the commercial impact of infringement
• Infringer’s financial records, accounts of the defendant’s infringing sales, obtainable through disclosure orders or court-directed accounting
• Comparable licence agreements, evidence of arm’s-length licensing rates for comparable patents in the same technical field
• Expert economic report, a damages quantification report from an independent expert, linking the infringement to quantified losses
• Causal link documentation, evidence connecting the specific infringing acts to the patentee’s claimed losses (market overlap, customer diversion, price erosion)

Cross-border enforcement of UPC orders in Romania

UPC decisions have direct effect in all participating Member States, including Romania. An injunction granted by the UPC does not require a separate exequatur proceeding in Romania, it is enforceable through the Romanian enforcement system upon presentation of the UPC order. This represents a significant practical advantage over the pre-UPC regime, where pan-European enforcement required country-by-country recognition proceedings.

SPC litigation and pharma patents in Romania

Supplementary protection certificates extend the effective patent term for pharmaceutical and plant protection products by up to five years, compensating for regulatory delays in obtaining marketing authorisation. In Romania, SPCs are granted by OSIM and remain national rights, a critical distinction for forum choice. SPC litigation Romania practitioners must navigate the intersection of patent law, regulatory law and EU-level SPC regulations.

Because SPCs are national in character, they fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. Enforcement of an SPC in Romania requires proceedings before Romanian national courts. However, where the underlying European patent is being challenged at the UPC, whether through a revocation action or an infringement counterclaim on validity, the SPC holder faces the risk of conflicting outcomes. A UPC finding of invalidity on the base patent could undermine the SPC, even though the SPC itself was not directly at issue in the UPC proceedings.

The likely practical effect is that pharma patentees with Romanian SPCs will need to run coordinated dual-track strategies: enforcing the SPC nationally while monitoring (and potentially intervening in) UPC proceedings concerning the base patent.

Practical checklist for SPC enforcement preparation

• Marketing authorisation (MA) documentation, certified copy of the Romanian or EU centralised MA, including the date of first authorisation
• SPC grant certificate, OSIM grant documentation confirming the SPC’s scope, effective dates and product definition
• Regulatory timeline, a clear chronology from patent grant through MA application to MA grant, demonstrating the period of effective patent term erosion that justified the SPC
• Paediatric extension evidence, where applicable, documentation supporting any six-month paediatric extension under EU Regulation 1901/2006
• Base patent status, current status of the underlying European patent, including any UPC opt-out registration, ongoing opposition or UPC proceedings

Procedure, evidence and practical timelines in Romanian patent courts

Steps to start a national patent action in Romania

Filing a patent infringement action in Romania follows established Romanian civil procedure, with certain patent-specific requirements:

• Filing. The claim is filed with the Bucharest Tribunal (Tribunalul București), which has specialised jurisdiction over patent disputes. The statement of claim must include the patent details, a description of the infringing acts and the relief sought.
• Service and initial response. The defendant is served and has a procedural deadline to file a statement of defence. Counterclaims for invalidity are common and should be anticipated.
• Case management. The court sets a case management timetable, including deadlines for evidence submission, expert appointment and oral hearings.
• Expert appointment. In nearly all patent cases, the court appoints a technical expert. The quality and specialisation of the expert can significantly affect the outcome, parties should proactively propose experts with relevant technical qualifications.
• Interim relief. Applications for interim injunctions can be filed at any time, including before the main action. The applicant must demonstrate urgency and risk of irreparable harm.

Evidence gathering and expert use

Romanian procedural law provides for court-ordered evidence preservation measures (similar to saisie-contrefaçon in France), allowing patentees to obtain and preserve evidence of infringement before or during proceedings. Expert evidence is central to Romanian patent litigation, the court-appointed expert’s report typically carries significant weight in the judge’s assessment of both infringement and validity.

Typical timeline comparison

These timelines are indicative and vary depending on case complexity, court workload and whether validity is contested. Patent enforcement Romania 2026 UPC timelines at the Unified Patent Court are still evolving as the court’s docket grows.

Practical checklists and defensive playbook

For patentees, pre-litigation checklist

• Audit your patent portfolio. Confirm which Romanian rights are Unitary Patents, nationally validated European patents or OSIM-granted national patents. Check opt-out status for each European patent.
• Preserve evidence early. Commission test purchases, capture online listings, and consider filing evidence preservation applications before notifying the infringer.
• Assess customs options. EU customs regulations allow patentees to apply for detention of suspected infringing goods at the Romanian border, a powerful early enforcement tool that complements court proceedings.
• Prepare injunction materials. Draft AASI applications (UPC) or interim injunction pleadings (Romania) in advance. Pre-position evidence of irreparable harm, urgency, balance of convenience and, where required, security offers.
• Evaluate abuse-of-process risk. Overly aggressive enforcement strategies, particularly at the UPC, can expose the patentee to claims for unjustified threats or abuse of process. Calibrate enforcement to the strength of the patent and the evidence of infringement.

For defendants, forum-choice defence steps

• Check opt-out status immediately. If the patent has been opted out of the UPC, the patentee cannot use the UPC, any such filing can be challenged on jurisdictional grounds.
• Gather invalidity evidence. Commission a prior art search and prepare invalidity contentions early. At the UPC, a revocation counterclaim can eliminate the patent with pan-European effect.
• Consider a stay motion. If the patent is under opposition at the EPO, a motion to stay national or UPC proceedings pending the opposition outcome may be tactically advantageous.
• File a declaration of non-infringement. Both the UPC and Romanian courts allow declaratory actions, filing first in the preferred forum can establish jurisdictional advantage.
• Assess counterclaim options. Counterclaims for revocation, declarations of non-infringement, and (where applicable) claims for damages for unjustified enforcement are all available at the UPC and in Romanian courts.

Conclusion: recommended next steps for GCs and counsel

Patent enforcement Romania 2026 UPC developments demand immediate attention. Rights-holders and defendants alike should take three concrete steps now:

• Conduct an immediate portfolio audit. Map every Romanian patent right to its enforcement forum, Unitary Patent (UPC), non-opted-out European patent (UPC or Romania), or national/SPC (Romania only).
• Make a forum decision within 30–60 days. For any active or anticipated dispute, commit to a forum based on the decision checklist above. Delay creates risk of losing first-mover advantage.
• Prepare the evidence bundle now. Whether pursuing or defending, assemble technical evidence, damages documentation and expert reports before proceedings commence. Preparation timelines at the UPC are compressed, waiting until filing is too late.

To connect with experienced Romanian patent litigators, find a lawyer through the Global Law Experts directory, filter by Patent Litigation and Romania.

Sources

1. Unified Patent Court, Decisions and Orders
2. European Patent Office, Unitary Patent now covers Romania
3. State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM), Romania
4. Pinsent Masons, Patent litigation strategies UPC 2026
5. D Young & Co, Romania ratifies UPC Agreement
6. Bardehle Pagenberg, Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court
7. UPC Law, Decisions archive
8. IAM Media, Patent Litigation Review 2025