Article 87

Revision

1.   Either seven years after the entry into force of this Agreement or once 2 000 infringement cases have been decided by the Court, whichever is the later point in time, and if necessary at regular intervals thereafter, a broad consultation with the users of the patent system shall be carried out by the Administrative Committee on the functioning, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Court and on the trust and confidence of users of the patent system in the quality of the Court's decisions. On the basis of this consultation and an opinion of the Court, the Administrative Committee may decide to revise this Agreement with a view to improving the functioning of the Court.

2.   The Administrative Committee may amend this Agreement to bring it into line with an international treaty relating to patents or Union law.

3.   A decision of the Administrative Committee taken on the basis of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not take effect if a Contracting Member State declares within twelve months of the date of the decision, on the basis of its relevant internal decision-making procedures, that it does not wish to be bound by the decision. In this case, a Review Conference of the Contracting Member States shall be convened.

IPPT20251006, UPC CoA, Roku v Dolby and Sun Patent
“Established by law” in Article 6(1) ECHR is to prevent the organisation of the judicial system from being left to the discretion of the executive and to ensure that this area is regulated by a law enacted by the legislature in accordance with the rules governing the exercise of its powers. Administrative Committee was authorized to provide that Milan should replace London as a division of the Central Division (Article 87(2) UPCA).The fact that the Convention does not provide for any power of amendment if the implementation of the UPCA proves impossible is due to an unintended regulatory gap. Article 87(2) of the UPCA serves the purpose of ensuring that there are no obstacles to the implementation of the Convention. Roku unsuccessfully argues that the change in the court structure, which is based on a factual impossibility, is a fundamental change that requires democratically legitimised decisions by the contracting member states. The involvement of the contracting member states is sufficiently ensured by analogy on the basis of the right of veto in Article 87(3) UPCA.