• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The Unified Patents Court

LoupedIn

JUVE’s survey respondents favour German and French Judges for the UPC bench and Paris to replace the third central division previously held by London

November 25, 2021, Seiko Hidaka

JUVE’s survey respondents favour German and French Judges for the UPC bench and Paris to replace the third central division previously held by London

We previously reported that JUVE were conducting a survey on who they wanted to serve as Judges in the UPC. Results have been published here (UPC favourites: French and German judges dominate) and here (Majority of patent community still in favour of UPC), and summarised below:

  • There were 1300 respondents.
  • Over 35% of the respondents were from France and the same form Germany, the remainder were spread across the remainder of Europe (including the UK), North America and Asia.
  • About 55% were patent attorneys, 35% were lawyers working in law firms and 5.5% were in-house patent personnel
  • Unsurprisingly perhaps therefore, French and German judges occupied the top 10 spots.
  • Klaus Grabinski was the favourite to become President of the Court of Appeal, attracting 28.5% of the votes. He is a highly experienced Judge who has served in the Patent Senate of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (the top Court). The next four popular Judges came from Germany (two Judges) and France (two Judges). The President will be chosen by the Court of Appeal judges.
  • The first President of the First Instance Court will be French in accordance with Article 14(2) UPC Agreement, and will be elected by the Court of First Instance judges. Paul Maier attracted the most votes, being 14.91%, narrowly followed by others. Mr Maier is currently the Director EU Observatory on infringements of IPRs at the EUIPO.
  • 86% of the respondents were supportive of the UPC
  • 45% of the respondents desired Paris to replace the third central division, which was previously allocated to London. 26% voted Milan, another 26% voted Amsterdam and 17% voted for Munich. JUVE explains that French and German respondents tended to vote in favour of their own cities. Milan has already applied for the seat and Amsterdam is anticipated to do so.

The JUVE report provides further details.

Quality of judges and their case management skills undoubtedly hold the key to UPC’s success, and so their appointments will be closely watched by interested businesses. JUVE has reported that the Preparatory Committee has confirmed that there will appoint around 95 legal and technical judges. This can happen when one more participating state ratifies and deposits the PAP Protocol (protocol on the provisional application) – which looks likely very soon.

About the author(s)

Photo of Seiko Hidaka
Seiko Hidaka
See recent postsBlog biography

Seiko Hidaka is a patent litigator with an international outlook, known for horizon scanning and thought leadership.

  • Seiko Hidaka
    https://loupedin.blog/author/seikohidaka/
    UPC Advisory Committee to predominantly consist of senior judges from across UPC countries
  • Seiko Hidaka
    https://loupedin.blog/author/seikohidaka/
    Inaugural meeting of the UPC’s Administrative Committee marks an important step towards commencement of the UPC
  • Seiko Hidaka
    https://loupedin.blog/author/seikohidaka/
    A “must read” checklist to help prepare you for the commencement of the UPC
  • Seiko Hidaka
    https://loupedin.blog/author/seikohidaka/
    Unified Patent Court (UPC) preparation can now start as requisite 13th Member State (Austria) ratifies the PAP-Protocol

Seiko Hidaka

Seiko Hidaka is a patent litigator with an international outlook, known for horizon scanning and thought leadership.

Filed Under: Blogs, Intellectual Property, The Unified Patents Court, Uncategorized Tagged With: Intellectual Property, Patents, unified patents court, UPC

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Sole(ly) aesthetic? The Birkenstock Sandal goes to the Federal Court of Justice
  • UK Litigation Funding: reform or retain?
  • Arbitration Act 2025 receives Royal Assent

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (62) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (19) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (15) Brexit (23) Climate change (16) Collective defined contribution (6) COP26 (11) Copyright (11) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (7) Data protection (8) Defined contribution (7) Dispute Resolution (14) Employment (14) employment law (11) Environment (18) Environmental Societal Governance (9) ESG (50) ESG and pensions (11) General Election 2024 and pensions (8) Intellectual Property (86) IP (10) Life sciences (7) litigation funding (8) net zero (6) Patents (40) Pensions (53) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (43) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (27) Retail (8) sustainability (21) Tech (58) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (16) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (39) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2025 Gowling WLG