Article 48

Representation

1.   Parties shall be represented by lawyers authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State.

2.   Parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 134 of the EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate.

3.   The requirements for qualifications pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be established by the Administrative Committee. A list of European Patent Attorneys entitled to represent parties before the Court shall be kept by the Registrar.

4.   Representatives of the parties may be assisted by patent attorneys, who shall be allowed to speak at hearings of the Court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

5.   Representatives of the parties shall enjoy the rights and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their duties, including the privilege from disclosure in proceedings before the Court in respect of communications between a representative and the party or any other person, under the conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure, unless such privilege is expressly waived by the party concerned.

6.   Representatives of the parties shall be obliged not to misrepresent cases or facts before the Court either knowingly or with good reasons to know.

7.   Representation in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not be required in proceedings under Article 32(1)(i).

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260126, President UPC CoA, Petitioner v Registrar
Confirmation of registrar’s rejection of application to be entered on the list of representatives on the basis of R. 12.1 EPLC Rules (grandfather’s clause) after expiration of the one-year transitional period (Article 48(3) UPCA, R. 19 EPLC Rules). Neither the EPLC Rules themselves nor the application of said rules by the Registrar of the UPC violate the principles of equality or are discriminatory.

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, Late filed application representative
Late filed application to be registered as representative on the basis of “other qualifications” under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules after the expiry of the one year transition period denied (Article 48(2) UPCA). A re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP is not possible because the RoP are not applicable to the EPLC Rules Even if the RoP would be applicable, the deadline from R. 12.1 EPLC Rules is not a deadline that could be subject to a re-establishment of right since the wording refers to the fact that certain courses and certificates “shall … be deemed as appropriate” which implies that this is not a procedural deadline but a material provision.

IPPT20250626, UPC CoA, Easee v Visibly
Outstanding issue regarding competence of law firm (Article 48 UPCA, R. 285 RoP) to file the appeal and the application for suspensive effect regarding the Easee companies in view of the insolvency of both entities having formally declared insolvent at the time when these motions were filed.

IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Confidentiality club membership rules (R. 262A RoP); number of persons and personal traits. R. 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (hereinafter: UPCA). Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and would unduly restrict a party’s freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings. Therefore, the fact that the US attorneys are neither employees of Daedalus, nor representatives within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, does not preclude them from having full access to the confidential information under R. 262A RoP. 

IPPT20250212, UPC CoA, Meril v SWAT Medical
Duty to be represented (Article 48 UPCA, R. 8 RoP).Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. Consequently, the fact that Respondent 1 is an authorised representative himself does not relieve him from the requirement of being represented. Respondent 1 is Chair of the Board of directors of SWAT Medical. He holds a high-level management position within SWAT Medical and cannot represent the company. It follows that Respondent 1 is not allowed to represent SWAT Medical. 

IPPT20250211, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Acting as a representative (Article 48 UPCA) of a legal person not possible for a corporate representative of a legal person, or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person. If the party is a natural person, the representation requirement under Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA implies that this person is not entitled to represent him or herself. This understanding is based on the term “representation” used in Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA and the concept of rights and immunities of representatives. Independent representation. One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. A representative who is employed by a party must also act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her clients in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests.

IPPT20241015, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
“Action manifestly bound to fail” (R. 361 RoP, R. 220.3 RoP) must be reserved for clear-cut cases. It should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence, as is clear from the use of the words ‘manifestly inadmissible’, and should not require further in-depth analysis, as rightly pointed out in the impugned order. Microsoft has failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order on the requirement set under R. 361 RoP is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Microsoft’s position that the impugned order is incorrect and does not provide a correct interpretation of Art 48(5) UPCA, R. 8.1 and R. 290.2 RoP, and Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives who appear before the Unified Patent Court, is not sufficient for the Court to grant Microsoft’s application, in particular as the issue of independence of a UPC representative is also the subject matter of a R. 220.2 RoP appeal currently pending, during which both Microsoft and Suinno have the opportunity to address it thoroughly. 

IPPT20240918, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST

No evidence of disputed valid power of attorney of a UPC representative required in the absence of any substantiated reasons why the actual existence thereof should be called into question (Article 48 UPCA, Rule 285 RoP). 

IPPT20240822, UPC CoA, UPC Representative
Petition for review of rejection of application to be entered on the list of UPC representatives  dismissed (Article 48(2) UPCA). Representation requires both EPO qualification and an additional litigation qualification under Art. 48(2) UPCA. The qualifications are exhaustively defined in the EPLC Rules and must be proven by certificates

IPPT20240208, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Public access to register requires representation (Rule 8 RoP, Rule 262 RoP, Article 47 UPCA, Article 48 UPCA). ‘Parties’ requiring representation pursuant to Rule 8(1) RoP encompasses also (i) a third party affected by an order or decision such as a third party under Rule 190 RoP and (ii) a member of the public under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Opt-out applicants are expressly exempted in Rule 5(4) RoP..Members of the public requesting access to the register pursuant to Rule 262 RoP are in an adversarial situation where representation is called for.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi

No reason to exclude claimant's patent attorneys from confidentiality club. (Article 48 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA, Rule. 262A RoP). It follows from Art. 48 UPCA that a party has the fundamental right to freely choose whether it wishes to be represented by a lawyer or a European Patent Attorney or by a team of both, optionally assisted by patent attorneys.Neither Art. 48 UPCA nor Art. 58 UPCA implies that the right to freely choose a representative can be restricted with regard to whether the representative has a legal or a technical background. As with technically qualified judges, the competence of patent attorneys is not limited to purely technical matters.

IPPT20260105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communication
Decision on reimbursement of representation costs to the Defendant in appeal proceedings concerning the service of the statement of claim. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 152 RoP, Rule 220 RoP) Proportional reduction of attorney's fees by two-thirds (Art. 48 (4) UPCA.). Procedural issue did not require the involvement of more than one lawyer, whereas 3 were hired. The involvement of a patent attorney for a non-technical question is not appropriate . Upper limit for reimbursable representation costs is not applicable in appeal proceedings ,a higher reimbursement of attorney's feesis not justified for for procedural issues. Value of Eur 1.5 million set for the infringement proceedings is irrelevant ; the appeal concerns only a fraction of this amount . 

IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay v Zhejiang 
Panel review confirmation of Judge Rapporteur’s order dated 25 September 2025 regarding confidentiality club (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 333 RoP). It is possible for a person who is not an employee of a party to join a confidentiality club, depending on the relevant circumstances of the case.  Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative. (Art. 48 UPCA) 

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Confidential and privileged information concerning costs of legal representation pursuant to EU law (Article 58 UPCA, R. 152 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 287 RoP). Information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed representatives and the fees agreed upon between the parties must be considered confidential and information concerning the number of hours spent on the case by the instructed attorneys and the fees agreed upon between the parties falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege provided by Rule 287 RoP.

IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, MED-EL v Nurotron
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the link between the proceedings in this case is different from the one assessed by LD Mannheim in case UPC CFI 445/2025, where it was held that the representative in the main proceeding (an infringement action) could be served an application that was inextricably linked to that main proceeding, even if the power of attorney was limited in this respect. 

IPPT20250626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
If a party is declared insolvent the parties’ representatives are still able to file the stay application under Rule 311.1 RoP. 

IPPT20250318, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sun Patent v Roku

If a representative of the plaintiff (Article 48 UPCA) has declared withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ (Article 83 UPCA) with regard to the patent in dispute, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove, on its own initiative, in or with the statement of claim, that the representative has power of attorney with regard to the declared withdrawal. Proof must only be provided if the power of attorney is disputed..

IPPT20240916, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - II
Not considered independent for purpose of a valid representation (Article 48(5) UPCA, R. 333 RoP.) It is undebated that […] is the respondent’s managing director and main shareholder and that because of that he enjoys extensive administrative and financial powers within the body he represents. 

IPPT20240710, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Confidentiality club rules (Rule 262A RoP, Article 48 UPCA). In the present case, the extension of access to the information in need of protection to three employees of the defendant is necessary, but also sufficient. Access to the information in need of protection in proceedings before the UPC is to be granted exclusively to authorised representatives pursuant to Art 48 UPCA who are authorised to represent the parties in the specific proceedings. 

IPPT20240709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope
Confidentiality and confidentiality club rules (Rule 262A RoP). Disclosure limited to authorized representatives (article 48 UPCA) in proceedings before UPC Local Divisions in Mannheim and Munich. 

IPPT20240702, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Request rejected to declare the infringement action manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP) because (a) the claimant was not duly represented according to Article 48 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (‘UPCA’) and Rule 8 (1) ‘RoP’ or (b) the content of the statement of claim was insufficient, as it lacked the requirements provided for by Rule 13 (1) (k) ‘RoP’. On due representation (Article 48 UPCA, Rule 8 (1) RoP, Rule 290(2) RoP): The mere fact that […] also carries out active administrative tasks on behalf of the represented party and that he may be directly interested in the outcome of the case is not decisive in order to consider that the representative is not independent for the purposes of interest here. Possible violation of the obligation of independence can only be asserted by the represented party, not by the counterparty. .

IPPT20240508, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Volkswagen et al. v NST
Valid withdrawal of opt-out on behalf of NST by a representative included in the official list of patent attorneys kept by the Registrar pursuant to Art. 48.3 UPCA who was not required to justify with powers of attorney at the time of filing the application on behalf of NST (Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP, Article 83.3 UPCA).