Do you believe interactions between judges and practitioners in environments like this can influence how litigation is approached in the UPC?
Yes — I do believe that these interactions can meaningfully influence how litigation is approached in the UPC.
The UPC is still a relatively young system, and in that sense it is shaped not only through its judgments, but also through an ongoing dialogue with the professional community that appears before it. The Court can only act on the petitions and information the parties provide. Conferences like this provide a valuable space for that dialogue. They allow judges to better understand the practical realities, strategic considerations, and commercial contexts in which patent disputes arise, while practitioners gain insight into how the court approaches questions of procedure, evidence, and legal interpretation.
In my view, we are all part of the same ecosystem. The more judges understand the industries and technologies underlying the disputes — as well as the concerns and constraints of the parties — the better equipped they are to resolve legal conflicts in a way that is both principled and practically meaningful. At the same time, such exchanges can help practitioners to frame their cases more clearly and efficiently, with a better appreciation of what the court considers relevant and persuasive.
Of course, this interaction must remain appropriately bounded: judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental. But within those limits, an open and thoughtful exchange of perspectives contributes to a more coherent, transparent, and effective system of litigation before the UPC.
What in your view are the key differences between being a judge before the UPC and before national courts (in terms of perspective, strategy, preparation)?
A key difference, in my view, lies in both the relative freedom and the complexity inherent in the UPC system compared to national courts.
On the one hand, the UPC is not bound by decades of entrenched national jurisprudence. This gives judges a certain degree of intellectual freedom to shape the procedural and substantive practice of the Court. Many procedural tools and approaches have, in a sense, had to be “invented” from the ground up, or at least adapted without being overly constrained by tradition. That is both a privilege and a responsibility, as it requires careful consideration to ensure consistency and predictability as the case law develops.
On the other hand, this freedom is balanced by a greater degree of complexity. A number of issues remain governed by national laws, which means that as a UPC judge I must be comfortable navigating and understanding multiple legal systems. This requires a broader comparative perspective than would typically be necessary in a purely national context.
Finally, there are also differences in judicial culture. Judges come to the UPC from diverse legal traditions, with different habits of preparation, styles of reasoning, and approaches to argumentation. This diversity can make proceedings more demanding, but it is also one of the strengths of the system. It enriches the deliberative process and, over time, contributes to the development of a genuinely supranational judicial culture.
In that sense, working as a UPC judge is both more challenging and, I would add, intellectually more stimulating than working within a single national system.
How important is or will judicial cooperation and information sharing be to avoid conflicting judgments with national courts or non-EU jurisdictions?
Judicial cooperation and information sharing are, in my view, essential—both historically and for the future development of the UPC.
The community of patent judges has traditionally been relatively close and collaborative, with a willingness to exchange views and learn from one another across jurisdictions. The UPC has clearly strengthened this dynamic by creating a more structured and institutionalised framework for such cooperation. In that sense, it is not merely a continuation of existing practice, but something of a step change—particularly when one considers issues such as cross-border enforcement and the emerging discussion on the UPC’s “long-arm” jurisdiction.
That said, one should be realistic about the limits of harmonisation. Even with close cooperation, differing approaches and divergent outcomes are, to a certain extent, inevitable. Judicial decisions are shaped not only by the facts of a case, but also by the applicable legal framework—including both substantive and procedural rules. As long as national laws continue to differ, also in procedural matters, some degree of inconsistency between UPC decisions, national court judgments, and those of non-EU jurisdictions cannot be fully avoided.
The aim, therefore, should not be to eliminate all differences—an unrealistic goal—but rather to manage them. Through dialogue, mutual awareness, and transparency, courts can at least reduce unnecessary divergence and better understand the reasons behind differing outcomes. In that sense, cooperation is less about uniformity and more about coherence and predictability within an inherently pluralistic legal landscape.
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 UPC itself is a once in a life time opportunity- how often do you get to build up the first pan-European civil court. One moment that stands out to me arose in the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, which—at least so far—has been the only division to conduct a full-scale witness hearing during the Court’s first three years of operation.
The preparation for that hearing was both fascinating and challenging. In many respects, there was no well-established blueprint to follow. I found myself, together with colleagues, effectively having to “invent” the practical framework for how such a hearing should be conducted within the UPC system—how to structure the examination of witnesses, how to manage time efficiently, and how to ensure that the process remained both fair and effective.
It was in that process, rather than in any single dramatic moment, that I had the sense of participating in something new. The combination of different legal traditions, the need for pragmatic solutions, and the awareness that our choices could shape future practice made the experience particularly striking.
It was a relatively small procedural step, perhaps, but it carried a certain symbolic weight: it showed that the UPC is not merely applying existing models, but is actively developing its own way of working. In that sense, it did feel like a moment where one could genuinely think—this is how a new court begins to build its history.
