UPC vs Italian Courts: a 2026 Decision Guide for Patent Owners and Licensors in Italy

Last reviewed: 3 May 2026

The question of UPC vs Italian courts patent litigation 2026 has become the defining forum-selection challenge for every patent owner, licensee and in-house counsel with exposure to the Italian market. A revised UPC fee schedule took effect on 1 January 2026, the EPO introduced its own fee increases during the same period, and the Unified Patent Court’s caseload has grown steadily since its June 2023 launch, all while Italy’s specialised IP sections continue to refine their own procedural toolkit. This guide cuts through the high-level overviews published elsewhere and delivers an Italy-focused, practical decision framework: cost tables, opt-out steps, enforcement comparisons and scenario-based recommendations that allow counsel to make, and defend, the right forum choice.

Quick Decision Checklist

Choose the UPC if:

• You need a single injunction enforceable across multiple UPC-contracting states.
• Speed to a pan-European preliminary injunction outweighs the risk of central revocation.
• The alleged infringer operates in several EU markets and you want to consolidate proceedings.

Choose Italian national courts if:

• Infringement is concentrated in Italy and you need tailored local remedies (seizure, description orders).
• You want to avoid the risk that a single UPC revocation action invalidates your patent across all contracting states.
• Cost sensitivity is high: Italian court filing fees remain significantly lower than UPC fees after the 2026 overhaul.

What Changed in 2026, Regulatory and Cost Triggers for UPC vs Italian Courts Patent Litigation

Several overlapping developments have reshaped the forum-selection calculus for patent enforcement in Europe and, specifically, in Italy. Understanding the timeline is essential before comparing the two systems.

Timeline of Key Developments (2023–2026)

Quick Implications for Patentees in Italy

• Budget recalibration. Combined UPC and EPO fee increases mean that enforcing and maintaining a European patent portfolio is materially more expensive in 2026 than it was at UPC launch.
• Forum shopping window. The transitional period (during which opt-outs can still be filed or withdrawn) remains open, but early indications suggest that strategic use of the opt-out is becoming a central part of litigation planning.
• Milan LD maturation. With several years of operation, the Milan Local Division is developing its own procedural culture, language preferences, approaches to preliminary injunctions, and case-management practices that Italian practitioners can now evaluate against domestic court benchmarks.

The Unified Patent Court, Jurisdiction, Remedies and Strengths (Milan LD Context)

The Unified Patent Court 2026 offers patent owners a single forum capable of granting relief across all contracting member states. For Italian patentees, the Milan Local Division is the primary point of contact with the UPC system. Understanding both the system-wide features and the Milan-specific practice is critical for informed forum selection in patent Europe.

Scope and Limits of UPC Jurisdiction

The UPC has jurisdiction over European patents (including unitary patents) validated in contracting member states, unless the patent has been opted out. Jurisdiction extends to infringement, revocation, declarations of non-infringement, and counterclaims for revocation. Importantly, the UPC’s emerging “long-arm” jurisdiction means that, in certain circumstances, a patentee may be able to sue a defendant domiciled outside the UPC territory for acts of infringement committed within it. Industry observers expect the boundaries of this jurisdiction to continue evolving through Court of Appeal decisions and potential CJEU referrals.

Countries that have not ratified the UPC Agreement, including Spain, Poland, Croatia and several other EU member states, remain outside UPC jurisdiction entirely. The United Kingdom, post-Brexit, is also excluded. This means that a UPC injunction, however broad, will not cover those markets.

Milan Local Division, Practical Notes

• Language. Proceedings before the Milan LD may be conducted in Italian, though parties can agree on English or request a language change. In practice, the availability of Italian-language proceedings is a significant draw for domestic patentees and defendants.
• Preliminary injunctions. The Milan LD can grant preliminary injunctions under the UPC Rules of Procedure. The likely practical effect is that patentees seeking rapid relief in Italy can choose between the Milan LD (UPC) and the Milan specialised sections (national court) depending on whether pan-EU scope or local enforcement precision is the priority.
• Central revocation risk. Any defendant facing a UPC infringement action may file a revocation counterclaim. If successful, the patent falls across all contracting states, a risk that does not exist in national proceedings, where revocation affects only the Italian validation.

UPC Fees 2026, Overview

Note: The UPC publishes its official fee schedule on its website. The figures above are indicative of the post-1 January 2026 structure. Patentees should verify current rates directly.

Italian National Courts, Procedure, Remedies and Strengths

Patent enforcement in Italy benefits from a mature and well-resourced specialised court system. Italy’s dedicated IP sections, most notably in Milan, but also in Rome, Turin, and other major centres, have decades of experience handling complex patent disputes. For patentees focused on the Italian market, national courts offer a distinct set of procedural tools.

Milan Court and Specialised IP Sections

The Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Specializzata in materia di Impresa (“Enterprise Court”), is Italy’s most active venue for patent litigation. Its judges routinely handle pharmaceutical, mechanical, electronics and standard-essential patent cases. The court’s familiarity with both Italian patent law (under the Italian Industrial Property Code, Codice della Proprietà Industriale) and European patent designations validated in Italy makes it the natural domestic alternative to the UPC’s Milan Local Division.

Key procedural features of Italian national patent litigation include:

• Preliminary measures. Italian courts can grant descrizione (detailed description/inspection orders), seizure of infringing goods, and ex parte preliminary injunctions, often within days of filing in urgent cases.
• No bifurcation. Unlike the German system, Italian courts decide both validity and infringement in a single proceeding, reducing the risk of conflicting outcomes.
• Flexible evidence. Courts may appoint technical experts (consulenti tecnici d’ufficio, or CTUs) to assist with claim construction and infringement analysis, a feature highly valued in technically complex cases.

Typical Timetable and Budgets, Italian Courts

Ranges are indicative and vary significantly by case complexity, number of patents, and defendant behaviour. Court filing fees in Italy remain substantially lower than UPC fixed fees.

Comparative Decision Matrix, When to Choose UPC vs Italian Courts in 2026

This is the core section for counsel weighing forum selection for patent litigation in Europe with an Italian dimension. The following matrix maps the most common decision factors against the relative strengths of each forum.

Sample Scenarios

• Scenario 1, SME vs multinational (Italy-only infringement). An Italian SME discovers that a large multinational is importing infringing products exclusively into Italy. Industry observers expect that Italian national courts offer the better path: lower costs, rapid ex parte measures, and no risk of pan-EU revocation. UPC proceedings would expose the patent to central attack with limited upside since infringement is confined to one market.
• Scenario 2, Licensing enforcement across Europe. A patent owner licensing to manufacturers across the EU identifies unlicensed use in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. The UPC offers the advantage of a single proceeding with pan-EU injunctive potential, strengthening the licensor’s negotiating position. The trade-off is the revocation risk, only advisable where the patent has survived prior validity challenges.
• Scenario 3, Parallel imports. A patentee suspects parallel imports entering the EU through Italy. Italian courts’ established seizure and descrizione mechanisms may be faster for evidence collection. A UPC action can follow if cross-border relief is needed once evidence is secured.
• Scenario 4, Design-around dispute. A competitor launches a modified product allegedly designed around the patent. The technical nuances favour Italian courts, where CTU appointment is routine and judges are experienced in assessing equivalence under Italian case law. The UPC may be preferable only if the design-around is being commercialised across multiple contracting states simultaneously.

Costs and Budgets (2026), Detailed Fee Comparison and Sample Budgets

The combined effect of UPC fees 2026 and EPO fee increases 2026 has materially altered the economics of European patent enforcement. This section provides a comparative cost overview for patentees planning litigation with an Italian dimension.

Recoverable Costs Comparison

At the UPC, the prevailing party may recover costs on a scale set by the court, subject to ceilings established in the Rules of Procedure. In Italian courts, cost recovery (spese di lite) is governed by judicial tariffs and, while generally awarded to the winning party, the amounts recoverable tend to be lower than actual expenditure. The likely practical effect is that cost recovery at the UPC is more generous in absolute terms but subject to judicial discretion and the ceiling framework, while Italian recoverable costs are more predictable but rarely cover the full expense of litigation.

Tips to Reduce Cost Exposure

• Target injunctions strategically. Seek preliminary relief in the forum where it is cheapest and most effective for your immediate commercial need, Italian courts for Italy-only relief, UPC for multi-state.
• Consider early settlement. UPC procedures include a formal encouragement for parties to settle. Italian courts also favour settlement, particularly during the CTU phase.
• Rationalise the portfolio. With EPO fee increases in 2026, review which validations and patents justify enforcement expenditure. Drop weak or non-core patents before they become cost centres.

Opt-Out in Italy, Step-by-Step (2026)

The opt-out mechanism allows the proprietor (or all co-proprietors) of a European patent to remove it from UPC jurisdiction, preserving the exclusive competence of national courts. For patentees who wish to opt out a European patent validated in Italy, the process is as follows:

When Not to Opt Out, Strategic Considerations

• Strong pan-EU enforcement need. If you anticipate needing a pan-EU injunction, keeping the patent within UPC jurisdiction is essential.
• Deterrent effect. UPC jurisdiction may deter potential infringers who would prefer to face fragmented national proceedings.
• Portfolio consistency. Some patentees opt out selectively, keeping stronger patents in the UPC for enforcement while opting out weaker ones to avoid central revocation. This mixed strategy requires careful portfolio analysis.

Enforcement and Injunctions, Practical Expectations for Patent Enforcement in Italy

The enforceability of injunctions is often the decisive factor in forum selection for patent Europe disputes. This section compares the practical enforcement mechanics available at the UPC and in Italian national courts.

How Brussels I Recast and CJEU Referrals Affect Enforcement in Italy

The relationship between UPC jurisdiction and the Brussels I recast regulation remains an area of active development. The UPC is treated as a court common to several member states for jurisdictional purposes, but questions about how this interacts with national court jurisdiction, particularly where defendants are domiciled outside UPC territory, are still being tested. Early indications suggest that Italian courts will continue to apply Brussels I recast rules independently for national proceedings, while UPC panels develop their own interpretive approach through Court of Appeal guidance and potential CJEU referrals. Patentees should monitor this space closely, as the outcome will directly affect multi-jurisdictional enforcement strategies.

Practical Workflow and Recommended Checklist for Counsel

Before filing any patent enforcement action involving Italy, in-house counsel and external advisers should work through the following eight-point workflow:

1. IP audit. Map all European patents and Italian national patents in the portfolio. Identify which are opted out, which have unitary patent status, and which are validated in Italy only.
2. Infringer mapping. Identify the alleged infringer’s domicile, manufacturing locations, import routes and sales territories. This determines jurisdictional options.
3. Cost modelling. Build parallel cost estimates for UPC and Italian national proceedings using the 2026 fee tables above. Factor in EPO fee increases for portfolio maintenance.
4. Opt-out status check. Verify whether the relevant patents are opted out. Decide whether to opt in or opt out based on the enforcement strategy.
5. Provisional remedies analysis. Assess whether ex parte relief is needed (favours Italian courts) or whether pan-EU interim relief is the priority (favours UPC).
6. Witness and evidence plan. Determine whether descrizione orders or other Italian evidence-preservation tools are needed before or alongside the main action.
7. Enforcement readiness. Confirm that the chosen forum’s injunctions will be directly enforceable in the markets where the infringer operates.
8. Decision memo. Document the forum-selection rationale, including risk assessment of central revocation (UPC) vs limited geographic reach (Italy), and obtain sign-off from the patent owner or board.

Conclusion, UPC vs Italian Courts Patent Litigation 2026: Recommended Next Steps

The forum-selection decision between UPC vs Italian courts patent litigation 2026 is not a binary choice but a strategic calculation driven by geography, cost, risk tolerance and commercial objectives. For Italy-focused enforcement, particularly where speed, evidence preservation and controlled revocation risk matter most, Italian national courts remain highly competitive. For multi-state enforcement and licensing-driven strategies, the UPC offers reach that no single national court can match, though the 2026 fee overhaul and central revocation risk must be factored squarely into the equation.

Patent owners and licensors with Italian market exposure should conduct a structured forum-selection analysis, using the workflow and decision matrix above, for each enforcement matter. The landscape is evolving rapidly, and decisions taken now will shape portfolio value and competitive position for years to come.

This article provides general guidance on forum selection for patent litigation involving Italy and the Unified Patent Court. It does not constitute legal advice. Patentees should seek qualified legal counsel for case-specific recommendations.

Sources

1. Unified Patent Court, Decisions & Orders
2. European Patent Office, Unitary Patent and UPC Information
3. Chambers & Partners, Patent Litigation 2026 (Italy)
4. Baker McKenzie, EMEA UPC Long-Arm Jurisdiction Analysis (2026)
5. LES Italy, UPC +3 Years: A View on European Patent Litigation
6. Pinsent Masons, Patent Litigation Strategies and the UPC (2026)