How to Prepare Evidence & Expert Reports for Patent Litigation in Romania, a Step‑by‑step 2026 Guide

Knowing how to prepare evidence for patent litigation in Romania is the single most consequential pre‑trial task a patent owner or defendant will face. Romania’s national courts adjudicate infringement and validity disputes under Law No. 64/1991 on patents, with the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) serving as the national patent register. At the same time, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) now offers a parallel route for European patents with unitary effect, and its 2025–2026 provisional‑measures practice demands even more rigorous early‑stage evidence than many national litigants are accustomed to preparing.

This guide walks in‑house counsel, patent owners, R&D managers and instructing litigators through the exact sequence of steps, documents, deadlines and costs involved in assembling a court‑ready evidence bundle and expert reports in 2026.

Overview of the Evidence‑Preparation Process and Who It Applies To

Patent litigation in Romania can proceed before the specialised civil courts (typically the Bucharest Tribunal for first‑instance patent matters) or, where a European patent with unitary effect or a classic European patent validated in Romania is at issue, before the UPC. Regardless of the forum, both claimants and defendants need a structured evidence bundle patent litigation strategy before the first hearing date.

This guide covers the full evidence life‑cycle: pre‑litigation preservation, interim injunction packets, expert technical reports, damages evidence, and hearing preparation. It applies to any party that holds or is accused of infringing a Romanian national patent, a validated European patent (EP), or a unitary patent (UP) designating Romania. The same principles apply to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and utility models, with minor procedural variations.

The governing statute is Law No. 64/1991, as republished in the Monitorul Oficial (most recently on 27 June 2024). Practitioners should always check the consolidated text on the Romanian legislative portal before filing, because periodic republications may renumber articles or update procedural references. OSIM maintains the patent register, publishes the Official Bulletin of Industrial Property, and issues certified copies of patent specifications required by the courts.

For parties considering or already engaged in cross‑border IP protection strategies, aligning the Romanian evidence package with UPC evidentiary expectations from the outset is now regarded as best practice.

Eligibility and Prerequisites for Preparing Evidence for Patent Litigation in Romania

Before assembling a single exhibit, confirm that the prerequisites for a valid infringement or revocation action are in place.

Standing to sue. Under Law No. 64/1991, the patent owner, an exclusive licensee (unless the licence restricts litigation rights), or a non‑exclusive licensee acting with the owner’s consent may bring proceedings. Verify ownership by obtaining a current extract from the OSIM register. Where the patent was assigned, include notarised assignment deeds in the evidence bundle.

Patent validity checks. Search the OSIM register and, for EP/UP patents, the EPO register and Espacenet to confirm grant status, maintenance‑fee payments and any pending opposition or limitation proceedings. Conduct a prior‑art sweep covering Romanian and international databases, weaknesses in validity are routinely raised as a counterclaim and must be anticipated in the evidence strategy.

PCT/UPC flags. If the patent is a European patent that has not been opted out of UPC jurisdiction, or a unitary patent, identify whether the UPC may be a preferable or concurrent forum. This decision shapes the evidence format, language and expert‑report structure from the start.

Who Can Serve as an Expert Witness in Romania

Romanian courts may appoint a judicial expert from the official list maintained by the Ministry of Justice, or the parties may submit reports from party‑appointed experts. Party experts need not be on the official list, foreign experts are admissible provided their statements are properly authenticated and translated. Before any expert accesses confidential product samples or trade secrets, execute a confidentiality and non‑disclosure agreement (NDA) and, where appropriate, apply for a protective order from the court.

Step‑by‑Step Procedure: How to Prepare Evidence for Patent Litigation in Romania

The following numbered steps represent the typical chronological workflow. Adapt the sequence to your case posture, claimant or defendant, with or without interim relief.

Step 1, Preserve Evidence and Secure the Chain of Custody

Act immediately upon identifying suspected infringement. Preservation should begin within 24–72 hours to prevent spoliation.

1. Acquire and quarantine accused products. Purchase or seize samples through authorised channels. Photograph and catalogue each item, recording serial numbers, purchase location, date and price.
2. Engage a forensic laboratory. Transfer samples under a signed chain‑of‑custody log. The log must record every person who handled the sample, the dates and times of transfer, and storage conditions.
3. Collect commercial evidence. Request sales invoices, distribution agreements, import records and marketing materials from the opposing side (or from customs, where applicable). Internally, compile your own sales data, licence fee records and lost‑opportunity documentation.
4. Send a warning letter. A formal cease‑and‑desist letter puts the defendant on notice and may support a later claim for enhanced damages or wilful infringement. Attach evidence of the patent and a preliminary infringement mapping.

Step 2, Prepare the Interim Injunction Packet

If speed is critical, an application for interim measures should be filed alongside or shortly after the substantive claim. Romanian courts can hear urgent injunction requests within 2–6 weeks, and ex parte emergency relief may be available in exceptional circumstances.

1. Draft a prima facie case summary. Set out the patent claims relied upon, the accused product or process, and a concise infringement analysis.
2. Produce a technical comparison matrix. Map each element of the relevant patent claim against the corresponding feature of the accused embodiment, using annotated photographs, technical drawings and measurements.
3. Commission a provisional expert memo. A short‑form party expert opinion, typically 10–20 pages, showing that infringement is at least arguable and that the balance of harm favours interim relief.
4. Prepare witness statements. Signed statements from technical staff, procurement officers or former employees who can attest to the defendant’s activities.
5. Compile supporting exhibits. Include market data, competitor analyses and any evidence of urgency (e.g., trade‑fair launch dates, tender deadlines).

Step 3, File the Claim and Serve the Evidence Bundle

1. File at the competent court. Patent infringement claims are typically filed at the Bucharest Tribunal. Attach a complete evidence index listing every exhibit by number, title and description.
2. Submit exhibits in the required format. Courts expect paper originals or certified copies. Translations of non‑Romanian documents must be certified. Electronic copies on USB may supplement paper filings where the court permits.
3. Serve the defendant. Service is effected through the court or via a judicial executor (executor judecătoresc). Allow 2–7 days for service after filing.
4. Request an expedited hearing schedule if seeking interim measures. Include the injunction application with the initial filing to avoid procedural delays.

Step 4, Commission or Produce Expert Reports

Expert reports are often the decisive evidence in Romanian patent trials. The two main routes are:

1. Party‑appointed expert report. Instruct a technical expert of your choice. Provide them with a precise list of questions (agreed with counsel), the patent file, the accused product/samples, and access to testing facilities. The expert must include a signed declaration of independence, a detailed methodology section, and full raw data appendices.
2. Court‑appointed judicial expert. The court may appoint an expert from the Ministry of Justice list. The parties submit written questions, and the expert files a report with the court. Parties may challenge the report and request supplementary opinions or a different expert.
3. Agree sample protocols. Where the accused product is complex (e.g., pharmaceutical formulations, semiconductor chips), agree with the opposing side on testing protocols, sample selection criteria and laboratory accreditation standards before testing begins.
4. Plan for cross‑examination. Ensure the expert is available for oral examination at the hearing. Foreign experts may attend in person or, where the court permits, via video link, provided their statements are authenticated and translated.

Step 5, Exchange Expert Reports and Prepare for the Hearing

1. Exchange reports per the court timetable. Each party files its report by the deadline set by the judge. Exchange/rebuttal cycles typically run 2–6 weeks per round.
2. Prepare a rebuttal report addressing factual or methodological errors in the opposing expert’s conclusions.
3. Submit joint questions. Where practical, propose a list of jointly agreed technical questions for the court expert to streamline proceedings.
4. Prepare demonstratives. Visual aids, annotated claim charts, 3D models, side‑by‑side product comparisons, help judges assess complex technical evidence.

Timeline Summary Table

Required Documents and Information for Patent Litigation in Romania

The table below sets out every document typically needed for a patent suit in Romania, together with notes on who issues it, the required format, and practical validity considerations. Assembling this evidence bundle early, before filing, prevents avoidable adjournments and strengthens both interim and final applications.

Expert‑Report Checklist, Meeting Expert Report Requirements in Romania

Every party‑appointed expert report should contain the following elements. Courts and judges expect this structure, and omitting any element risks the report being given reduced weight or excluded.

For a deeper discussion of broader international intellectual property strategy, including how evidence standards differ across jurisdictions, see our dedicated guide.

Interim Injunction Timeline and Key Deadlines in Romania

Timing is often the decisive factor in patent cases, particularly for claimants seeking to block a product launch or halt ongoing infringement. The table below sets out the typical timeframes for an expedited interim‑measures track versus the full merits process.

Industry observers note that 2025–2026 UPC case law has raised the bar for interim relief across Europe: UPC local divisions are conducting more detailed early merits scrutiny before granting provisional measures. The likely practical effect for Romanian litigants is that evidence assembled for a national interim application should already meet UPC standards of detail and reproducibility, in case the strategic decision is later made to pursue UPC relief in parallel.

Costs of Producing Expert Evidence and Filing Fees

Costs vary significantly with case complexity, the technical discipline involved and whether cross‑border enforcement is anticipated. The table below provides indicative ranges to assist with budgeting. All figures should be verified against the current official fee schedule before filing.

Expert invoices from foreign‑resident experts may be subject to Romanian VAT and withholding‑tax obligations. Seek specialist tax advice before agreeing payment terms, particularly where cross‑border services are involved.

What Changes in 2026, PCT/UPC Evidence Considerations

Three developments shape how practitioners should prepare evidence for patent litigation in Romania during 2026:

• UPC provisional measures and early merits scrutiny. Recent UPC orders, including a February 2026 decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division on provisional measures, confirm that the Court conducts a substantive review of the merits at the interim stage. Parties must prepare robust, reproducible technical evidence that can withstand this scrutiny, even for an initial injunction application.
• Republication of Law No. 64/1991. The patent statute was republished in the Monitorul Oficial on 27 June 2024. Practitioners must verify that they are citing the current consolidated text available on the Romanian legislative portal (Portal Legislativ) rather than outdated versions. Article numbering and procedural references may differ between editions.
• Harmonise evidence bundles for dual jurisdiction. Where a European patent or unitary patent is at issue, early indications suggest that practitioners should format expert reports so they can be submitted to both Romanian national courts and the UPC without substantial reworking. Include unitary‑patent file references, unitary‑effect dates and EP validation data in the evidence index from the outset.

Common Pitfalls When Preparing Evidence for Patent Litigation in Romania, And How to Avoid Them

• Incomplete raw data or undisclosed test protocols. Courts may discount expert reports that lack full raw data appendices or fail to describe the testing methodology in reproducible detail. Mitigation: attach complete raw data, calibration certificates and chain‑of‑custody logs to every expert report.
• Missing independence declaration. An expert witness in Romania who fails to include a signed statement of independence risks having their report excluded or given reduced weight. Mitigation: obtain the declaration and fee‑disclosure statement before the report is finalised.
• Poor or uncertified translations. Non‑Romanian documents submitted without certified translations can be disregarded by the court. Mitigation: use certified translators and prepare a cross‑reference table mapping original‑language pages to their translated equivalents.
• Late disclosure of market or financial data. Courts may refuse to admit evidence filed after the timetabled deadline, or may draw adverse inferences from delay. Mitigation: calendar all critical deadlines at the outset; begin compiling financial and market data immediately after evidence preservation.
• Missed deadlines. If a deadline is missed, the affected party must seek leave from the court, demonstrating that the delay was justified and that admission of the late material would not prejudice the opposing party. Courts retain discretion to impose costs sanctions.

Conclusion

Knowing how to prepare evidence for patent litigation in Romania is not a one‑time exercise, it is an iterative, deadline‑driven process that begins the moment infringement is suspected and continues through trial and enforcement. The 2026 landscape adds an extra layer of complexity: UPC‑readiness, republished statutory texts and rising evidentiary expectations for interim relief all require practitioners to plan further ahead and document more rigorously than ever before. By following the step‑by‑step procedure, completing every item on the evidence bundle and expert‑report checklists, and adhering to the timeline benchmarks set out in this guide, claimants and defendants alike can enter the courtroom, whether in Bucharest or before a UPC local division, with the strongest possible evidentiary foundation.

Consult the Global Law Experts lawyer directory to identify specialist patent litigators practising in Romania.

Sources

1. Portal Legislativ, Law No. 64/1991 (Patent Law, consolidated text)
2. WIPO Lex, Law No. 64/1991 (English consolidated)
3. Juridice.ro, Republication of Law No. 64/1991 (June 2024)
4. UPC Case Law Database
5. DLA Piper, UPC Legal Compass: Preliminary Injunctions (2026)
6. WIPO Lex, Patent Fee Regulations (Romania)