How Italy's 2026 IP Code & Civil-justice Reforms Change Patent Litigation Strategy

Last reviewed: 17 May 2026

Introduction, Why 2026 Is a Turning Point for Patent Litigation in Italy

Patent litigation in Italy has entered a fundamentally different landscape. The convergence of three separate reform streams, substantive amendments to the Italian Intellectual Property Code (Codice della Proprietà Industriale, or CPI), sweeping civil-justice procedural reforms under Decreto Legislativo 149/2022 as progressively implemented through 2026, and the EPO fee increases effective 1 April 2026, forces every patentee, in-house counsel and IP manager to reassess enforcement strategy. Forum selection between national Italian courts and the Unified Patent Court now involves a materially different cost-benefit calculus, interim-relief procedures have been streamlined, and the way Italian courts assess patent damages has been recalibrated.

This article provides a practical, step-by-step playbook for teams that need to make enforcement decisions right now, covering forum choice, interim-relief tactics, evidence preservation and cross-border cost modelling under the reformed rules.

Industry observers expect the combined effect of these reforms to accelerate first-instance patent proceedings in Italy, tighten the window for evidence preservation, and make Italian courts a more competitive forum for cross-border patent enforcement within Europe. The sections below translate each reform into concrete action items, decision checklists and worked cost examples designed for in-house teams managing patent portfolios with Italian exposure.

Executive Summary, 5 Practical Takeaways for In-House Teams

Before diving into the detail, here are five immediate action items that patent litigation teams should prioritise in light of the 2026 changes:

1. Reassess forum selection now. The UPC vs Italian courts decision has shifted. Model the cost and timing implications using the comparison table in this article before filing any new proceedings.
2. Preserve evidence within 48–72 hours of discovering infringement. Italy’s reformed telematic filing procedures accelerate the process for obtaining evidence-preservation orders (descrizione). Delays now carry a higher risk of losing the tactical advantage.
3. Budget for higher EPO prosecution costs. The EPO fee increases effective 1 April 2026 affect renewal fees, examination fees and opposition fees. Update patent portfolio budgets immediately.
4. Review UPC opt-out strategy. If your European patents are still opted out of the UPC, evaluate whether the reformed Italian system or UPC jurisdiction offers a better enforcement posture, the answer may have changed.
5. Model damages under the revised CPI provisions. The 2026 IP Code amendments refine the methodology for calculating patent damages in Italy. Ensure your damages experts are briefed on the updated statutory framework.

The rest of this article unpacks each of these points with tactical detail, legislative citations and worked examples.

Background, Existing System, UPC and Italy’s Role

UPC Jurisdiction and Timeline

The Unified Patent Court became operational on 1 June 2023, creating a single court with jurisdiction over European patents (including Unitary Patents) across Contracting Member States. Italy ratified the UPC Agreement and is a full participant, meaning that European patents designating Italy fall within the UPC’s jurisdiction unless the patent holder has filed an opt-out under Article 83 of the UPC Agreement. The UPC operates through a Central Division (with seats in Paris and Munich), Local Divisions and Regional Divisions. Italy hosts a Local Division in Milan, which handles patent litigation in Italy under UPC rules.

For patentees, the practical implication is a genuine choice: enforce a European patent through Italy’s specialised IP sections (the Sezioni Specializzate in Materia di Impresa) or through the UPC’s Milan Local Division (or the Central Division for revocation actions). This forum selection question, UPC vs Italian courts, has become the single most consequential tactical decision in European patent enforcement, and the 2026 reforms alter the variables on both sides of the equation.

How Italian Courts Historically Manage Patent Preliminary Injunctions

Italy’s specialised IP sections, located in designated courts such as Milan, Rome, Turin and Bologna, have historically offered a robust system for patent injunctions. The standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction (provvedimento cautelare) requires the applicant to demonstrate fumus boni iuris (a prima facie case on the merits) and periculum in mora (urgency or risk of irreparable harm). Italian courts have been willing to grant ex-parte preliminary measures in cases of genuine urgency, and the descrizione procedure, a court-supervised evidence inspection and seizure at the alleged infringer’s premises, remains one of Italy’s most powerful enforcement tools. Understanding this baseline is essential for evaluating what the 2026 reforms actually change.

What Changed, Italy’s IP Code 2026 (Italian IP Code 2026)

Key Amendments: Injunctions, Damages, Evidentiary Presumptions

The 2026 amendments to the Codice della Proprietà Industriale (CPI) refine several provisions that directly affect patent litigation strategy. The changes address three core areas: the standards for granting injunctive relief, the methodology for computing patent damages, and the evidentiary framework for establishing infringement.

On injunctive relief, the amended CPI clarifies the proportionality assessment that courts must apply when deciding whether to grant a permanent injunction. The reforms codify principles that Italian courts had been developing through case law, requiring judges to weigh the scope of the injunction against the economic impact on both parties and third-party interests. This does not weaken the injunction remedy; rather, it provides a more predictable framework for its application.

On damages, the amendments strengthen the patentee’s position by refining the statutory basis for claiming lost profits and providing clearer guidance on reasonable-royalty calculations. The revised provisions encourage courts to consider the infringer’s actual profits as one factor in determining the royalty base, moving closer to a hybrid model that accounts for both the patentee’s loss and the infringer’s gain.

On evidentiary presumptions, the reforms introduce a more structured burden-shifting mechanism in cases involving process patents, reinforcing the reversal of the burden of proof where the patented process produces a new product.

Civil-Justice Procedural Reforms (2026), Timing, Discovery, Interlocutory Practice

Timeline Impact, Typical First-Instance Timing After Reforms

The Riforma Cartabia (D.Lgs. 149/2022), as progressively implemented through April 2026, introduces several procedural changes that directly affect the pace and structure of patent litigation in Italy. The reforms mandate stricter case-management timelines, encourage front-loaded exchange of evidence and written submissions, and introduce enhanced telematic (electronic) filing requirements that eliminate many of the administrative delays associated with paper-based proceedings.

The practical effect on first-instance timing is significant. Under the pre-reform system, patent cases before Italy’s specialised IP sections typically took 18–30 months to reach a first-instance decision. Early indications suggest the reformed procedural framework could compress this to approximately 14–22 months in well-managed cases, primarily through tighter scheduling of preliminary hearings, reduced scope for adjournments, and mandatory pre-trial exchange of technical evidence. For interim relief specifically, the expedited preliminary-injunction route now allows courts to schedule hearings within days of filing in cases of demonstrated urgency.

New Tools for Evidence Preservation

The 2026 procedural reforms enhance the infrastructure for the descrizione (evidence inspection and seizure) procedure by enabling fully telematic filing of applications and supporting documentation. This means a patentee can file an emergency application for evidence preservation electronically, attach technical exhibits, and receive a court order without the delays previously associated with physical registry filings. The reforms also clarify the court’s power to appoint technical experts (consulenti tecnici d’ufficio) at the preliminary stage to assist with evaluating complex technical evidence during a descrizione.

For in-house teams, the key takeaway is speed: the window between discovering an infringement and obtaining a court-supervised evidence inspection has narrowed. Teams that delay beyond 48–72 hours risk having courts question the urgency (periculum in mora) of the application.

Forum Choice, UPC vs Italian Courts for Patent Litigation in Italy

Forum selection in patent enforcement across Europe has never been more consequential. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the key factors that patentees should weigh when choosing between the UPC (via the Milan Local Division or Central Division) and Italian national courts under the reformed system.

When to Choose UPC (Profile and Triggers)

The UPC is the stronger forum when a patentee needs pan-European relief from a single set of proceedings, particularly against a multinational infringer operating across multiple Contracting Member States. It is also advantageous where the patent is strong on validity (minimising the revocation risk) and the patentee wants to establish UPC precedent. The UPC’s ability to grant a single injunction covering all Contracting States eliminates the need for parallel national proceedings, a significant cost saving where infringement spans multiple jurisdictions.

When to Keep National Italian Proceedings (Profile and Triggers)

Italian national courts remain the preferred forum where the infringement is concentrated in Italy, the patent may face validity challenges (limiting pan-European revocation risk), or the patentee wants to leverage Italy’s mature descrizione procedure and established PI practice. The reformed Italian system, with compressed timelines and enhanced telematic filing, is now more competitive on speed. National proceedings also avoid the UPC’s higher court fees and the risk that a defendant will bring a central revocation action. For disputes involving Italian-language technical evidence or Italian manufacturing operations, national courts offer practical advantages in managing the evidentiary record.

Interim Relief and Evidence Preservation, Tactical Playbook for Patent Injunctions in Italy

Ex-Parte Measures and Standards in Italy

The two-part test for obtaining interim relief in patent cases remains anchored in fumus boni iuris (likelihood of success on the merits) and periculum in mora (urgency). The 2026 procedural reforms do not change this substantive standard but significantly accelerate the mechanics of obtaining relief.

A step-by-step tactical checklist for seeking emergency patent injunctions in Italy under the reformed system:

1. Assess and document urgency (Day 1). Collect evidence of infringing activity, market harm and competitive loss. The court will scrutinise the time between discovery of infringement and filing, delays undermine urgency.
2. Prepare a technical report (Days 1–3). Commission a preliminary claim-chart analysis from a patent attorney comparing the asserted claims with the accused product or process.
3. File the application telematically (Days 2–4). Under the reformed system, the application, supporting exhibits, technical report and proposed order can be filed electronically with the competent specialised IP section.
4. Request ex-parte hearing or expedited inter-partes hearing. In cases of exceptional urgency (risk of evidence destruction, imminent trade-fair exhibition), request an ex-parte order. Otherwise, request an expedited inter-partes hearing within 7–15 days.
5. Prepare security for damages. Italian courts may require the applicant to provide security to compensate the defendant if the injunction is later overturned. Budget for a bank guarantee or deposit in the range of €10,000–€50,000 depending on case value.
6. Execute the descrizione immediately. If the court grants an evidence-preservation order, coordinate with the court-appointed bailiff and technical expert to conduct the inspection at the infringer’s premises, ideally within 24–48 hours of the order.

Cross-Border Evidence Assists and Seizures (EU Instruments)

For cross-border patent enforcement cases, such as those involving goods manufactured in China and imported through Italian ports, the Evidence Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1783) and the enforcement provisions under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 (customs enforcement of IP rights) provide additional tools. Italian customs authorities can detain suspected infringing goods at the border upon application by the patent holder, buying time for formal proceedings. The 2026 reforms do not alter the customs procedure itself but make it faster to obtain the companion judicial orders needed to convert a customs detention into a substantive seizure.

Where evidence is located in other EU Member States, a patentee litigating in Italian courts can use the Evidence Regulation to request cross-border evidence taking. In UPC proceedings, Rule 192 of the UPC Rules of Procedure provides a self-contained framework for ordering evidence preservation and inspection across Contracting Member States.

Damages, Costs and EPO/UPC Fee Changes, Modelling the Impact on Enforcement Decisions

Quantifying Patent Damages in Italy in Practice

The revised CPI provisions affecting patent damages in Italy reinforce two primary methods of calculation: lost profits (the profits the patentee would have earned but for the infringement) and reasonable royalty (the licence fee that willing parties would have agreed upon). The 2026 amendments clarify that courts may also consider the infringer’s actual profits as a factor in determining the reasonable-royalty base, which in practice tends to increase awards in cases where the infringer has generated substantial revenue from the infringing product.

Italian courts have historically been conservative on damages awards compared to certain other European jurisdictions. Industry observers expect the reformed framework to produce modestly higher awards over time, as courts gain experience applying the updated statutory guidance and as patentees present more sophisticated economic evidence.

Cost Model Worked Example

The following table illustrates a worked cost comparison for a mid-complexity patent infringement case (value in dispute: €2–5 million) under three enforcement scenarios. These estimates include legal fees, court fees, technical expert costs and EPO prosecution costs where relevant. EPO fee increases effective 1 April 2026 affect the cost of maintaining the patent in force during litigation.

The EPO’s updated Rules relating to Fees, effective 1 April 2026, increase renewal fees, examination fees and opposition fees across the board. For a patentee maintaining a European patent designating multiple states during a 2–3 year litigation cycle, the cumulative increase in EPO prosecution costs can add €5,000–€15,000 to the total enforcement budget. This is a factor that many cost models overlook, and it slightly narrows the cost advantage of national proceedings over UPC litigation when the patent is validated in multiple jurisdictions.

Practical Enforcement Playbook, Step-by-Step (30/90/180 Day Checklist)

Pre-Litigation Enforcement (Cease-and-Desist; Customs Seizures)

Effective patent enforcement in Italy does not always begin with a court filing. The 30/90/180-day framework below provides a structured approach to escalation:

Days 1–30: Investigate and prepare

• Commission a freedom-to-operate analysis confirming infringement (claim chart).
• Identify the infringer’s supply chain, manufacturing location, import routes, Italian distribution network.
• File a customs-enforcement application under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 if infringing goods are being imported into Italy.
• Send a cease-and-desist letter drafted under Italian law, identifying the patent, the infringement and the remedies sought. This letter establishes the record of notice and is often required for later damages claims.
• Brief external Italian counsel on the merits, available forums (national vs UPC) and preferred strategy.

Days 31–90: Secure evidence and interim relief

• File an application for descrizione (evidence preservation and inspection) if the cease-and-desist is ignored or the infringer denies infringement.
• Apply for a preliminary injunction if the evidence supports fumus boni iuris and periculum in mora.
• If UPC is the chosen forum, file the infringement action and application for provisional measures with the Milan Local Division simultaneously.
• Coordinate with customs, follow up on any border detentions and prepare to convert them into substantive seizures with judicial backing.

Days 91–180: Merits proceedings and settlement posture

• File the main infringement action (if not already filed with the PI application).
• Exchange technical evidence, under the reformed procedural rules, front-loaded disclosure is now expected.
• Appoint damages experts and begin preparing the damages quantification under the revised CPI framework.
• Evaluate settlement, the descrizione results and any PI order provide strong leverage for negotiation.

From Emergency PI to Merits Hearing

Once a preliminary injunction is granted in Italian patent litigation, the patentee must initiate merits proceedings within a deadline set by the court (typically 20–60 days, depending on the type of measure). Failure to file merits proceedings within this window will cause the preliminary injunction to lapse. Under the reformed civil-procedure rules, the transition from PI to merits hearing is more tightly managed, with courts setting firm scheduling orders at the first case-management conference.

For cross-border patent enforcement involving manufacturers in non-EU jurisdictions, parallel coordination between Italian proceedings and proceedings in the country of manufacture (such as China) may be necessary. This requires careful management of timing, evidence and legal privilege across jurisdictions, a tactical dimension that the 2026 reforms do not directly address but that becomes more critical as Italian proceedings accelerate.

Conclusion and Recommended Next Steps

The 2026 reforms to patent litigation in Italy, spanning the Italian IP Code 2026 amendments, civil-justice procedural reforms and EPO fee increases, create both opportunities and new tactical demands for patentees. Three prioritised actions for in-house teams:

1. Re-run your forum-selection analysis. The reformed Italian system is faster and cheaper for Italy-focused disputes; the UPC remains superior for pan-European relief. Use the comparison table and cost model above to update your assessment.
2. Accelerate evidence preservation. The compressed procedural timelines make speed critical. Build a pre-prepared descrizione application template and maintain standing relationships with Italian litigation counsel who can file within 48 hours.
3. Update patent portfolio budgets. The EPO fee increases effective 1 April 2026 affect every European patent in force. Adjust renewal-fee forecasts and factor the increases into enforcement cost-benefit analyses.

For specific guidance on patent enforcement strategy in Italy, including forum selection, interim-relief applications and cross-border coordination, consult a qualified patent litigation lawyer in Italy through the Global Law Experts directory.

Sources

1. Chambers, Patent Litigation 2026 (Italy)
2. Bollettino Ufficiale, Civil Procedure Reform Summary (D.Lgs. 149/2022, 2026 Guide)
3. Unified Patent Court, FAQ on Provisional and Protective Measures
4. European Patent Office, Rules Relating to Fees (Update Effective 1 April 2026)
5. European Patent Office, Unified Patent Court Overview
6. Forresters, Changes to Fees at the EPO from 1 April 2026