On 4 August 2026, the Munich central division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order in a dispute involving a communications standard-essential patent (SEP). With an invalidity counterclaim pending before the UPC and a parallel opposition proceeding before the European Patent Office (EPO), the court refused a request to stay the UPC case until the EPO process had run its course and instead placed the validity dispute on a tighter timetable.
The practical message is difficult to miss: a parallel EPO opposition may not provide a dependable route for slowing UPC litigation, and parties will have less room to hold expert evidence back until late in the proceedings. In SEP and other high-value European patent disputes, invalidity theories, technical expert positions and supporting documents may need to be developed earlier than some litigants are used to. Whether the same approach becomes consistent across UPC divisions remains to be seen, but the order reinforces a procedural culture that favours speed and disciplined evidence management over tactical delay.
