What qualities or skills do you believe distinguish a successful litigator before the UPC compared with national patent courts?
When I think about the qualities/skills that distinguish the litigators I most admire, I do not just think of the many past lawyers who shaped my training as a litigator or the international colleagues from other firms that I had the pleasure to work with. I think mainly of the people who today stand beside me in court. At NLP, for example, my co-founding partner Beatriz Lima is meticulous and masters every detail of the case, while Sara Nazaré is remarkably creative and innovative lawyer, while extremely sharp in the way she presents arguments. Those are the kinds of qualities I believe make a real difference before the UPC.
As for the differences between litigating before the UPC and national patent courts, first, a successful UPC litigator must be able to navigate a new and complex procedural framework with (a still) very limited case law. That requires a solid grounding in fundamental legal principles, not only in patent law but also in civil procedure, and a willingness to study and be creative while safeguarding and serving the client’s interests.
Second, a UPC litigator needs a genuinely European strategic mindset. The Court’s pan-European remedies, tight procedural deadlines and interaction with national proceedings and EPO actions require strong case management skills, the ability to coordinate parallel disputes and to design a litigation strategy that is coherent across multiple jurisdictions.
Lastly, success before the UPC also depends on the ability to work effectively in international teams and to plead before multinational panels of judges. This calls for excellent preparation as well as strong soft skills, in particular the ability to understand and manage different professional cultures, communication styles and expectations.
Looking ahead, how do you envision the UPC’s role evolving in Europe’s patent enforcement ecosystem, what will “success” for the UPC look like in five years?
Looking ahead, I expect the UPC to become a central forum for high stakes, multi jurisdiction patent disputes in Europe, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, life sciences and high tech. Its role in the patent enforcement ecosystem will largely depend on the Court’s ability to deliver well-reasoned, technically robust decisions within relatively short timelines. Over time, this can create a coherent body of case law that increases predictability for both right holders and alleged infringers.
In my view, “success” for the UPC in five years would mean three things. First, a stable and respected truly European jurisprudence that offers clear guidance on core procedural and substantive patent issues. Second, a system that is genuinely accessible not only to large multinationals but also to small and medium sized European companies, in terms of costs and procedural complexity. Third, effective coordination with national courts and the EPO, reducing conflicting outcomes.
A successful court is one that is available to everyone and consistently provides high quality decisions. A strong judiciary for IP in Europe is one of the foundations for a healthy use of IP rights in the economy and for encouraging innovation and investment in the EU.
From your experience so far, what distinguishes a strong preliminary injunction application before the UPC compared to national courts?
UPC judges are highly specialised in patent matters, with significant experience and training, so they expect an application that goes straight to the core issues and is both factually and legally robust. The key could be to present a clear, well-structured case supported by solid evidence.
To do that, a lawyer needs to understand how the different divisions and panels operate and to closely follow the emerging case law, adapting the narrative and the emphasis of the arguments to the standards that are being developed by the Court. Storytelling is still essential, but before the UPC it has to be tighter and more analytical, aimed at a very expert audience.
By contrast, in many national courts - for example, before Portuguese courts - the proceedings often involve fewer dedicated resources and less exposure to complex patent disputes. This can lead to longer, more contextual submissions. Before the UPC, the challenge is almost the opposite: to condense a technically and legally sophisticated case into a submission that is concise, precise and easy to navigate for a specialised bench.
Can you recall a case you handled (or followed) and what key lessons you took away for future Europe litigation?
One case that clearly stands out for me is Boehringer v Zentiva before the Unified Patent Court, a pharmaceutical patent dispute in which my co-founders at NLP, Sara Nazaré and Beatriz Lima, and I argued the first preliminary injunction based on imminence of infringement before the UPC Court of Appeal.
We already had more than 15 years of experience in pharmaceutical patent litigation, but this was a new setting: litigating before an international panel of judges, trying to overturn a first instance decision without knowing exactly how the hearing would be managed. The appeal was successful: the decision was reversed and the preliminary injunction was granted.
The key lessons I took from that experience for future European litigation were, first, the absolute importance of preparation. Everyone on the team needs to know the case inside out, regardless of which sections they are primarily responsible for. Second, the value of listening carefully – to the judges and to opposing counsel – and paying attention to the body language and dynamics in the courtroom. Third, the need to combine confidence with humility: being ready to adjust your approach in real time instead of sticking rigidly to a script. Finally, trust in your team is essential; high pressure, cross border litigation is only sustainable when you know you can rely completely on the people working on your side.
What’s one small UPC moment — a case, a conversation, a courtroom insight — that made you think, “Yes, this is history in the making”?
The Boehringer v Zentiva case also stands out to me, but here for a very different reason. When we pleaded the case at first instance, almost everyone in the courtroom — the judges, the clerk, and counsel on both sides — were women. In a field that has traditionally been very male dominated, seeing an almost all female courtroom in one of the first UPC pharmaceutical PI cases was a powerful signal of change.
That was followed by another milestone that I was fortunate to witness: Sara becoming the first Portuguese lawyer to plead before the UPC in the first case brought before the Lisbon Local Division, Ericsson v Asustek.
In both moments we looked at each other and felt proud and fortunate to be part of something that will shape what the UPC – and the role of Portuguese lawyers in it – will look like for the next generation of professionals.
interviewed by Paula Terzini Leite
