UPC vs Romanian National Courts for Patent Disputes: a 2026 Practical Guide

Last updated: 11 May 2026

Since Romania’s accession to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024, every patent owner, general counsel and IP litigator with exposure to the Romanian market faces a concrete strategic question: should a dispute be brought before the Unified Patent Court or before Romanian national courts? The answer depends on the type of patent right at issue, the geographic footprint of the infringement, the speed and scope of relief required, and the defendant’s vulnerability to cross-border remedies. This guide addresses the question of UPC vs national courts Romania with a practitioner’s focus, checklists, comparison tables, realistic timelines and cost estimates, so that decision-makers can choose the right forum with confidence.

It is designed for general counsel, in-house IP teams, outside patent litigators and pharmaceutical companies evaluating supplementary protection certificate (SPC) enforcement strategies in or involving Romania.

Romania and the Unified Patent Court, Status and Key Dates

Romania became part of the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024. According to the European Patent Office, Romania deposited its instrument of ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), bringing the total number of participating Member States to 18 at that date. The practical effect is that European patents granted by the EPO can now be given unitary effect covering Romania, and the UPC has jurisdiction over disputes involving those rights on Romanian territory.

Key dates and what they mean for existing European patents

• 1 June 2023. The UPC opened for business and the Unitary Patent became available for the first time, initially without Romania.
• 1 September 2024. Romania’s accession took effect. From this date, Unitary Patents automatically cover Romania, and the UPC’s jurisdiction extends to Romanian territory for eligible rights.
• Transitional period (ongoing until at least 1 June 2030). During the transitional period provided by Article 83 UPCA, holders of classical European patents (i.e., EP bundles validated in Romania) retain the option of litigating in Romanian national courts. They may also opt out their classical EPs from UPC jurisdiction entirely, a right that remains exercisable throughout the transitional period.
• Opt-out sunrise window. Patent holders who registered opt-outs before 1 June 2023 during the sunrise period secured immediate protection from UPC jurisdiction. Opt-outs can still be filed, but once an action has been commenced at the UPC, it is too late to opt out that patent.

For in-house counsel managing a Romanian patent portfolio, the immediate takeaway is this: any European patent validated in Romania that has not been opted out is now within the UPC’s shared competence during the transitional period, meaning either forum, the unified patent court Romania division or the Romanian national courts, is available.

Jurisdiction and Reach, What the UPC Can Decide vs National Courts

Understanding the jurisdictional dividing line is the foundation of any UPC forum choice analysis. According to the UPC’s own FAQ on jurisdiction, the court has exclusive competence over European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patents) and shared competence with national courts over classical European patents during the transitional period. Romanian national patents (granted under Romanian law by OSIM, the Romanian Patent Office) remain entirely outside the UPC’s jurisdiction.

The practical split works as follows:

• Unitary Patents. The UPC has exclusive jurisdiction for infringement, revocation, declarations of non-infringement and provisional measures. Romanian national courts cannot hear these claims.
• Classical European patents (EP bundles). During the transitional period, both the UPC and Romanian courts have jurisdiction, unless the patent has been opted out, in which case only Romanian courts (or courts of other designated states) may hear the dispute.
• Romanian national patents. Only Romanian courts have jurisdiction. The UPC has no competence whatsoever.
• SPCs. The UPC has jurisdiction over SPCs that relate to a European patent with unitary effect or a classical EP that has not been opted out. This is discussed in detail in the SPC section below.

Long-arm jurisdiction and Brussels I bis interaction

One of the most consequential developments in UPC practice concerns long-arm jurisdiction, the UPC’s ability to affect enforcement in or against parties outside Contracting Member States. Under Articles 71a–71e of the Brussels I bis Regulation (as amended by Regulation 542/2014), the UPC is treated as a court common to the Contracting Member States for jurisdictional purposes. This means that the UPC can assert jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the UPC territory using the same rules that would apply to a national court of a Contracting Member State.

For Romania specifically, the long-arm jurisdiction of the UPC means that a patentee can potentially obtain a pan-European injunction at the UPC covering Romania and enforce it against a defendant whose infringing acts touch Romanian territory, even if the defendant is domiciled in a non-Contracting State. Industry observers expect this mechanism to be tested increasingly in 2026 as patentees seek to consolidate multi-jurisdiction enforcement into a single UPC proceeding rather than pursuing parallel national actions.

Opt-out, transition and implications for Romanian-filed patents

Patent holders who wish to keep their classical EPs exclusively in the Romanian national court system during the transitional period must file an opt-out with the UPC Registry. The opt-out is free, takes effect immediately and can be withdrawn later (a so-called “opt back in”), provided no national court action is pending on the same patent. The decision to opt out is strategic: it removes the risk of a UPC-wide revocation action, but it also forecloses the possibility of obtaining UPC-wide injunctive relief. For defendants, the opt-out landscape matters because it determines which forum a patentee can use. Counsel advising Romanian defendants should always check the UPC’s opt-out register as a first step.

Remedies and Practical Outcomes, Patent Enforcement Romania Head-to-Head

The choice between the UPC and Romanian national courts for patent enforcement Romania disputes ultimately comes down to the remedies available, the speed at which they can be obtained, and their geographic effect. The following comparison table sets out the key differences across the most important procedural dimensions.

Patent injunctions Romania, speed, enforcement and cross-border effect

For patentees whose primary concern is stopping infringing goods on the Romanian market quickly, the tactical question is whether a UPC provisional measure or a Romanian preliminary injunction delivers faster relief. Romanian courts can issue an ordonanță președințială (presidential order) on an accelerated timeline, sometimes within days of filing in genuinely urgent cases. The geographic effect, however, is confined to Romania. By contrast, a UPC provisional measure can cover every Contracting Member State simultaneously, an enormous advantage when the infringement spans multiple markets. Early indications from UPC practice suggest that local divisions have been willing to grant provisional measures on compressed timetables when urgency is demonstrated, but the procedure is still maturing and timelines can vary by division.

Damages, procedures, proof and quantification

Damages at the UPC are governed by Article 68 UPCA, which provides for compensation adequate to the prejudice suffered, including lost profits and, in appropriate cases, damages on the basis of royalties or unjust enrichment. However, the quantification of damages may require reference to the national law of each Contracting Member State where infringement occurred. For Romania specifically, this means Romanian substantive rules on damages could apply even in a UPC proceeding. In Romanian national courts, damages are assessed under Romanian civil law principles, and courts have long-established (if not always patent-specialist) experience with market-based quantification.

The likely practical effect is that patentees with a Romania-only damages claim may find national courts more efficient, while those pursuing multi-state damages may prefer the UPC’s consolidated approach despite its greater complexity.

Evidence, technical experts, disclosure and oral hearings

One structural advantage of the UPC is that its judicial panels include technically qualified judges. This means patent claims construction and technical evidence are assessed by judges with relevant scientific or engineering backgrounds. Romanian national courts, by contrast, do not have specialised IP divisions. Patent cases are heard by general civil court judges who rely heavily on court-appointed technical experts. The UPC’s more structured disclosure rules also allow patentees to obtain preservation-of-evidence orders and compel limited document production, tools that are narrower under Romanian civil procedure. For cases that turn on complex technical questions, the UPC’s technical expertise can be a significant forum-selection factor.

SPC Litigation Romania, Can You Bring SPCs at the UPC?

Supplementary protection certificates are a critical concern for pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies. According to the UPC FAQ on jurisdiction, the UPC has competence over actions relating to SPCs issued on the basis of a European patent, whether that patent has unitary effect or is a classical EP that has not been opted out. This means that SPC litigation Romania can, in principle, be brought at the UPC if the underlying EP qualifies.

However, there are important nuances. SPCs are granted nationally, in Romania, by OSIM. The validity and scope of the SPC itself may therefore involve questions of Romanian national law and regulatory approval history. Where the SPC dispute raises purely national regulatory issues (e.g., the validity of the Romanian marketing authorisation underlying the SPC), practical considerations may favour the Romanian courts, which have direct familiarity with the local regulatory framework.

Checklist, where to bring SPC enforcement:

• UPC is available if: the underlying EP has unitary effect, or the underlying classical EP has not been opted out, and you seek cross-border relief across multiple Contracting States.
• Romanian national courts may be preferable if: the SPC dispute turns on Romanian-specific regulatory or validity issues; only Romanian market relief is needed; or the underlying EP has been opted out.
• Always check: whether the opt-out register shows the relevant EP as opted out, and whether any prior national proceedings could create a lis pendens issue under Article 83(3) UPCA.

Tactical Decision Framework, When to Sue at the UPC vs Romania

The following decision framework is designed to help general counsel and IP litigators evaluate the UPC forum choice question systematically. It addresses the most common scenarios, with actionable recommendations for each.

Scenario A, Romania-only infringement, urgent local injunction needed

Recommended forum: Romanian national courts. When the infringement is confined to Romania and the primary objective is a fast preliminary injunction, Romanian courts offer a direct path. The ordonanță președințială procedure is well-established, and enforcement is immediate within Romanian territory. There is no need to navigate UPC divisional assignments or translation requirements.

Scenario B, Multi-state infringement including Romania

Recommended forum: UPC. When the infringing activity spans multiple Contracting Member States, for example, a product manufactured in one state and sold across several markets including Romania, the UPC’s ability to issue a single pan-European injunction is a decisive advantage. A single proceeding at the UPC replaces the need for parallel national actions in Romania, Germany, France and other affected states. Cost savings and consistency of outcome favour the UPC.

Scenario C, Parallel validity risk

Evaluate carefully. If the defendant is likely to challenge the validity of the patent, the risk of bifurcation at the UPC (where the local division may refer the validity counterclaim to the Central Division) must be weighed against the Romanian court’s unified approach to infringement and validity. Patentees confident in patent validity may prefer the UPC for its faster injunction track; those facing serious validity challenges may prefer a single Romanian proceeding where infringement and validity are decided together.

Scenario D, SPC enforcement

Assess the underlying EP and the nature of the dispute. If the SPC relates to a non-opted-out EP and cross-border relief is needed, the UPC is the logical forum. If the dispute centres on Romanian regulatory issues or the EP is opted out, Romanian courts are the only option.

Scenario E, Strong technical evidence vs weak

Consider the UPC’s technically qualified judges. In cases where patent claims construction and technical expert evidence will be central to the outcome, the UPC’s panels, which include technically qualified judges, offer an advantage that Romanian general civil courts cannot match. Industry observers note that early UPC decisions have demonstrated a willingness to engage deeply with complex technical evidence, making the UPC an attractive forum for technically strong cases. Conversely, if the case turns primarily on commercial matters, market evidence or Romanian-specific regulatory facts, national courts may be equally or more suitable.

Quick-reference checklist for in-house counsel, when to sue at UPC

• Is the patent a Unitary Patent or a non-opted-out classical EP? If yes → UPC is available.
• Does the infringement cover more than one Contracting Member State? If yes → UPC offers consolidated relief.
• Is cross-border injunctive relief the primary objective? If yes → UPC’s pan-European injunctions are the key advantage.
• Is fast Romania-only preliminary relief the priority? If yes → consider Romanian national courts for speed.
• Does the case involve complex technical claim construction? If yes → UPC’s technically qualified judges add value.
• Is there a significant validity challenge expected? If yes → weigh bifurcation risk at UPC against unified proceedings in Romania.
• Is the SPC dispute driven by Romanian regulatory facts? If yes → Romanian courts are better placed.

Practical Litigation Timelines and Costs, UPC vs National Courts Romania

Realistic time and cost estimates are essential for any patent enforcement Romania strategy. The following ranges reflect the current state of practice as of mid-2026 and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

Preparing technical evidence for each forum

Evidence preparation differs significantly between the two forums. At the UPC, the written procedure is front-loaded: the statement of claim must be accompanied by detailed technical evidence, claim charts and expert reports from the outset. This requires substantial upfront investment but accelerates the overall timeline. In Romanian national courts, evidence is typically developed during the proceedings, with court-appointed experts playing a central role. Parties can submit their own expert reports, but the court-appointed expert’s opinion often carries considerable weight. Counsel should plan evidence budgets and timelines accordingly, a UPC proceeding demands heavy investment before filing, while a Romanian proceeding spreads the cost but extends the timeline.

Enforcement and Cross-Border Remedies, Executing UPC Orders in Romania

One of the most important practical advantages of the UPC for patent owners is the direct enforceability of its decisions across all Contracting Member States, including Romania. Under Article 82 UPCA, decisions and orders of the UPC are enforceable in any Contracting Member State. No exequatur (separate recognition procedure) is required. A UPC injunction covering Romania can be enforced directly through Romanian bailiffs (executori judecătorești) in the same manner as a domestic court order.

For defendants, this means that a UPC injunction obtained in Munich, Paris or The Hague has immediate effect in Romania. There is no opportunity to re-litigate the merits before a Romanian court as a condition of enforcement. The defendant’s recourse is to the UPC’s own appeals process, not to Romanian national courts.

Enforcement checklist for patentees:

• Obtain a certified copy of the UPC decision with the enforcement clause.
• Engage a Romanian bailiff (executor judecătoresc) to serve and enforce the order.
• Where the order includes seizure or destruction of infringing goods, coordinate with Romanian customs authorities if the goods are in transit.
• Monitor compliance and be prepared to file enforcement proceedings if the defendant does not comply voluntarily.

Enforcement checklist for defendants:

• Verify the authenticity and scope of the UPC order immediately upon service.
• Assess whether grounds exist for a stay of enforcement at the UPC level (e.g., pending appeal with request for suspensive effect).
• Do not assume that Romanian courts can review or modify the substance of the UPC order, enforcement is largely automatic.
• Engage local counsel in Romania promptly to manage bailiff interactions and protect business-critical assets.

How Defendants Should Evaluate Forum Risk, A Defensive Playbook

Defendants facing a patent infringement claim in Romania must evaluate forum risk from the earliest stage. The decision by a patentee to bring proceedings at the UPC rather than before Romanian national courts changes the defensive landscape substantially.

• Check the opt-out register. If the patent has been opted out, the UPC cannot hear the case. If not, the defendant should assess whether a counterclaim for revocation at the UPC could be tactically advantageous (revocation has pan-European effect) or risky (validity challenge may be referred to the Central Division, delaying the infringement analysis).
• Prior use defence. Under Article 28 UPCA, a defendant who can demonstrate prior use or right of personal possession before the filing or priority date has a defence. This defence is assessed under the national law of each relevant Contracting State, so Romanian-specific evidence of prior use remains relevant even in UPC proceedings.
• Forum-shopping awareness. Patentees may choose their preferred UPC local or regional division strategically. Defendants should analyse divisional practice and case allocation rules to anticipate which panel will hear the case and whether a transfer request is warranted.
• Damages mitigation. If an injunction is likely, defendants should prepare a plan for design-arounds or market withdrawal to limit damages exposure. In both forums, the duration of infringing activity directly affects the quantum of damages.
• National defences under Romanian law. Certain defences, including competition law arguments, exhaustion of rights and regulatory exceptions, may be better developed in Romanian jurisprudence. Defendants should evaluate whether these defences are more effectively raised before a Romanian court that is familiar with local case law.

Conclusion, Choosing Between UPC and National Courts Romania

The question of UPC vs national courts Romania does not have a one-size-fits-all answer. For multi-state infringement involving Unitary Patents or non-opted-out classical EPs, the UPC offers unmatched consolidation, pan-European injunctive relief and technically qualified judicial panels. For Romania-only disputes, fast preliminary relief on the local market, or cases turning on Romanian regulatory or SPC issues, national courts remain a practical and sometimes faster option. The decision framework and checklists in this guide provide a structured starting point, but every case demands bespoke analysis of the specific patent rights, the infringement footprint, the evidence landscape and the strategic objectives of the rights-holder or defendant.

Specialist counsel with experience in both the unified patent court Romania system and Romanian national patent litigation should be engaged at the earliest opportunity to ensure the forum selection maximises the client’s position.

Sources

1. Unified Patent Court, FAQ / Jurisdiction
2. European Patent Office, Romania joins Unitary Patent system (1 September 2024)
3. UPCA text / official consolidated instrument, Unified Patent Court
4. Bird & Bird, UPC Quick Guide
5. JUVE Patent, UPC practice and statistics
6. Santarelli, UPC jurisdiction beyond Contracting States
7. Romanian Patent Office (OSIM)
8. Stoica & Asociatii, Legal 500 Romania Patent Litigation Guide
9. Lexology, UPC defenses and practice notes