Strengthening the Bench

Judicial Training in the EPC Member States – Findings from the National Litigation Matters Subcommittee of the Litigation Committee

Introduction

Patent litigation occupies a unique position within the legal system: courts must translate complex technological concepts into legally binding conclusions. The launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has established a new benchmark for specialized, technically grounded judicial decision-making in Europe. The UPC itself reflects this emphasis on technical competence by combining legally qualified judges with technically qualified judges in many panels, illustrating the central role of technical understanding in modern patent adjudication.

This development places the state of national patent judiciaries into sharper focus. Consistency between national courts and the UPC is vital to the predictability and legal certainty of the European patent system as a whole. While several EPC member states have implemented initiatives aimed at strengthening judicial expertise, the diversity of national systems means that the level of technical specialization and the availability of structured training vary considerably.

Against this background, the National Litigation Matters Subcommittee of the Litigation Committee of the epi investigated the current state of judicial training across the EPC member states to identify areas for additional support and to explore how European Patent Attorneys (EPAs) can contribute most effectively.

Methodology

The investigation was conducted using a questionnaire comprising 22 questions organized into five thematic sections. It gathered both quantitative assessments of judicial expertise and training effectiveness, as well as qualitative insights from ten open-ended responses addressing jurisdiction-specific challenges and practices.

The questionnaire was circulated among members of the Litigation Committee, who can be expected to have familiarity with court procedures in their respective jurisdictions. Responses were received from 52 practitioners representing 35 EPC member states. The respondent pool is highly experienced: 79% have practiced as EPAs for more than 11 years, reflecting a high level of professional experience, and 50% reported regular or occasional involvement in patent litigation.

Data collection took place between May 2025 and February 2026. The questionnaire is available at patentepi.org/r/info-2602-1, and the anonymized raw data supporting the findings of this investigation can be accessed at patentepi.org/r/info-2602-2.

It should be noted that the findings should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. The survey reflects the perceptions of European Patent Attorneys, which may not fully align with judicial self-assessment or outcome-based empirical measures. In addition, response density varied across jurisdictions, and litigation-intensive systems may be comparatively overrepresented. Nevertheless, the respondents’ professional experience provides informed insight into how judicial expertise is perceived in practice and how it affects litigation dynamics.

Results

The results indicate several recurring patterns across EPC member states. Three themes stand out: the relationship between court structure and perceived judicial technical expertise; the connection between limited judicial technical expertise and increased reliance on expert testimony; and the state of judicial training availability and design. Each is addressed in turn below.

In 60% of the jurisdictions represented, patent cases are handled by general or commercial courts rather than dedicated patent courts, as shown in Figure 1.

Judicial technical expertise was assessed on a scale from 1 (“Insufficient”) to 4 (“Strong”), with an average score of 2.04 across all jurisdictions, indicating a generally limited level of perceived technical expertise. Broken down by court type, the average score was 1.56 for general and commercial courts, 2.15 for specialized IP chambers, and 3.06 for specialized patent courts, as shown in Figure 2. These results indicate that perceived technical expertise varies significantly by court structure, with specialized patent courts scoring approximately twice as high as generalist courts.

A correlation emerges between perceived judicial technical expertise and reliance on expert testimony. Jurisdictions in which expert opinions were perceived to play an excessive role in determining case outcomes showed a mean expertise score of 1.45 (on a scale from 1 to 4, indicating a low level of perceived expertise), compared with 2.40 (indicating a more moderate level of expertise) in jurisdictions where the expert role was perceived as balanced, as illustrated in Figure 3. Among practitioners who rated judicial expertise at 2 or below, 51.5% reported excessive reliance on expert opinions. Courts were reported to rely more frequently on court-appointed experts (mean reliance score 2.36) than on party-appointed experts. More than 40% of respondents cited procedural delays and increased costs associated with expert‑driven proceedings, and 29% noted that court-appointed experts occasionally lack sufficient expertise in the specific technology at issue.

With respect to training availability, 46.2% of jurisdictions were reported to lack any dedicated judicial training programs in patent law, and only three respondents reported mandatory programs. Among jurisdictions with existing programs, 38.5% were described as ineffective or limited, while only three respondents characterized them as very effective. The most widely identified training priorities were claim interpretation and scope (75%), infringement analysis including the doctrine of equivalents (73%), and inventive step assessment (58%), as summarized in Figure 4. Interactive training formats were clearly preferred: case‑study discussions involving judges, lawyers, and patent attorneys received the highest level of support (79%), followed by judicial exchange programs between EPC member states (62%) and technical workshops (54%). In response to the question of whether additional technical training would improve judicial rulings, 59% answered in the affirmative. Support for a formal judicial certification framework stood at 67%.

Open‑ended responses identified four structural obstacles to improving judicial technical training: limited judicial specialization, arising from the prevalence of generalist courts where patent cases form only a small share of the workload; fragmented training structures, with education often dependent on individual judicial initiative rather than systematic programs; weak institutional incentives, as judicial evaluation frequently prioritizes case throughput over technical specialization; and limited interaction with the broader patent ecosystem, including reduced exposure to EPO case law developments and practitioner input.

Some respondents also noted that the establishment of the UPC may reduce incentives in some jurisdictions to further invest in the technical training of national judges, particularly where complex patent litigation is expected to shift towards the UPC.

Regarding institutional support measures, the most widely endorsed proposal was the creation of a centralized database of patent case law across EPC member states (67%), followed by training modules based on EPO Boards of Appeal reasoning (60%), involvement of European Patent Attorneys in training activities (52%), and structured collaboration between the EPO and national judiciaries (50%).

Discussion

The survey results provide a basis for several observations regarding the relationship between court structure, judicial technical expertise, and the effectiveness of training frameworks across EPC member states.

Institutional Design and Technical Familiarity

A central finding is the extent to which patent disputes continue to be handled by generalist or commercial courts in a majority of EPC member states. Where patent cases arise only intermittently within a broader civil or commercial caseload, opportunities for judges to build sustained technical familiarity are necessarily limited. This structural constraint helps to explain both the comparatively low levels of perceived technical expertise reported for generalist courts, and the correspondingly higher reliance on expert opinions, irrespective of the individual capabilities of the judges concerned.

By contrast, systems that concentrate patent disputes within specialized courts or chambers appear better positioned to foster technical competence through repetition and accumulated experience.

In several EPC jurisdictions – such as Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries – this logic is reflected at the national level through the use of specialized patent chambers and/or judges with substantial technical experience, which have long played an important role in managing the technical complexity of patent disputes.

The UPC represents the most explicit institutionalization of this logic. By integrating technically qualified judges directly into decision‑making panels, the UPC embeds technical expertise within the adjudicative process rather than relying primarily on external sources. This illustrates that judicial expertise is shaped by institutional design as much as by training initiatives.

At the same time, the results indicate that specialization is not a binary concept. Several jurisdictions combine legally qualified judges with varying degrees of technical exposure, including judges with scientific backgrounds. These hybrid arrangements suggest that meaningful technical familiarity can be achieved through different institutional pathways, provided that patent disputes are not overly fragmented across courts or judges.

Judicial Expertise and the Role of Experts

One of the most consistent patterns emerging from the analysis concerns the relationship between perceived judicial expertise and reliance on expert testimony. In jurisdictions where judges are seen as having limited technical familiarity, expert opinions – particularly those of court-appointed experts – are perceived to play a more decisive role in determining outcomes.

This finding does not imply that expert evidence is inherently problematic. Expert input is indispensable in patent litigation, especially where highly specialized technologies are involved. However, where judicial capacity to critically assess expert reasoning is limited, decision‑making risks shifting from judicial evaluation towards expert persuasion. In such cases, expert testimony may move beyond informing the court to effectively driving legal conclusions.

The reported procedural consequences – including increased costs, longer proceedings, and variable expert quality – highlight that heavy reliance on expertise is not cost‑neutral. In technically complex cases, such reliance may also introduce procedural friction, particularly where conflicting expert opinions require extensive clarification. Strengthening judicial technical expertise may therefore serve not only substantive accuracy, but also procedural efficiency, by enabling judges to retain greater control over the technical narrative of a case, manage expert contributions more effectively, and engage more critically with expert evidence.

Training Gaps and High‑Impact Priorities

The training data point to a dual gap: one of availability and one of design. Nearly half of the jurisdictions represented lack any dedicated judicial training in patent law, and even where programs exist, practitioners frequently consider them limited or ineffective. This suggests that judicial expertise cannot be addressed solely by expanding access to training; the form and content of such initiatives are equally important.

The strong convergence across jurisdictions regarding priority training areas is particularly notable. Claim interpretation, infringement analysis, and inventive step assessment lie at the core of patent adjudication and require judges to integrate technical understanding with legal reasoning. The prominence of these issues indicates that judicial challenges arise less from abstract doctrinal uncertainty than from the difficulty of applying legal standards to complex technical facts.

Equally significant is the clear preference for interactive formats. The results suggest that passive, lecture‑based instruction is unlikely to address the practical challenges identified by practitioners. Instead, training formats that involve case‑based discussion and direct interaction between judges, lawyers, and patent attorneys appear more likely to strengthen judicial confidence and competence. This finding aligns with the broader insight that effective patent adjudication depends on experiential learning as much as formal legal knowledge.

Structural and Institutional Constraints

The structural obstacles identified through the open-ended responses point to limitations that training initiatives alone cannot overcome. Fragmented training structures, weak institutional incentives for specialization, and limited exposure to developments in EPO case law all constrain the impact of isolated educational efforts. The reference to limited exposure to EPO case law is particularly relevant for generalist courts or jurisdictions in which patent cases arise only infrequently, and should be distinguished from the separate issue that, in jurisdictions where courts do engage with EPO Boards of Appeal case law, they may accord it different weight or depart from it on specific issues. These constraints help explain why even well-intentioned training programs may have limited long-term effects in some jurisdictions.

Concerns that the establishment of the UPC may reduce incentives to invest in national judicial training further complicate this landscape. While the UPC is expected to absorb a significant share of complex patent litigation, national courts will continue to handle a substantial volume of patent disputes. Ensuring that these courts maintain adequate technical capacity remains important for the coherence and credibility of the European patent system as a whole.

Towards Coordinated Capacity Building

Practitioners further indicated interest in centralized training resources prepared by institutions. In particular, respondents highlighted the potential value of structured modules explaining the reasoning of the EPO Boards of Appeal and its relevance to national patent litigation.

It should be noted, however, that the weight accorded to EPO case law varies across EPC member states: some jurisdictions broadly follow the Boards of Appeal’s approach, while others deviate on specific issues. The UPC’s own jurisprudence illustrates this point, having adopted an approach to inventive step that does not always align with established EPO reasoning. Training initiatives drawing on Boards of Appeal decisions should therefore acknowledge this diversity, presenting EPO reasoning as a shared reference point rather than a uniform standard.

Several judicial training initiatives already exist at the European level, including programs organized by the European Patent AcademyEuropean Patent Office, European Patent Academy, Training Catalogue 2026, available at: https://link.epo.org/elearning/en-2026-academy-training-catalogue.pdf and the UPC training frameworkAgreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), Art. 19., which may provide useful foundations on which more systematic and continuously accessible training resources could be built.

The strong support expressed for institutional measures such as a centralized case law database and structured involvement of the EPO and the European patent attorney community suggests a preference for coordinated, system‑level solutions. These measures should be seen as complementary. Improved access to comparative case law can inform judicial reasoning; training modules based on Boards of Appeal decisions can enhance doctrinal coherence across jurisdictions while respecting the procedural autonomy of national courts; and practitioner involvement can bring practical technical insight into judicial education.

Taken together, the results indicate that strengthening judicial technical expertise requires a combination of structural concentration, high‑quality training design, and institutional coordination. Addressing any one of these elements in isolation is unlikely to produce sustained improvements. The challenge, therefore, lies not in identifying the need for judicial training, but in integrating training initiatives into a broader framework that reflects the institutional realities of patent adjudication across EPC member states.

Conclusion

While expert evidence remains an indispensable feature of patent litigation, the results of this investigation indicate that strengthening judicial capacity to critically assess technical material is central to maintaining judicial control over decision‑making. Where technical familiarity is limited, courts tend to rely more heavily on expert testimony, a dynamic associated by practitioners with increased procedural complexity, longer proceedings, and higher costs.

The survey further highlights the continued significance of national courts within the European patent litigation landscape. Despite the emergence of the Unified Patent Court, which reflects a structurally embedded model of technical expertise, national courts will remain responsible for a substantial share of patent disputes. The pronounced structural diversity among EPC member states – particularly the continued reliance in many jurisdictions on generalist courts – underscores the importance of strengthening judicial technical and doctrinal capacity at the national level.

Against this background, respondents expressed strong professional support for structural and institutional initiatives aimed at enhancing judicial expertise. In particular, a significant majority supported measures such as a centralized database of patent case law across EPC member states, training modules based on the reasoning of the EPO Boards of Appeal, and greater involvement of European Patent Attorneys in judicial training activities. Support for more formalized approaches, including a judicial certification framework for patent judges, further reflects a preference for systematic and coordinated capacity‑building rather than ad hoc or purely national solutions.

Taken together, the findings suggest that meaningful progress in judicial training will depend not on isolated initiatives, but on their integration into broader institutional frameworks that reflect the realities of patent adjudication across EPC member states. Strengthening judicial technical expertise through coordinated training design, improved access to comparative case law, and closer interaction between judicial institutions, the EPO, and the practitioner community can contribute to more consistent, credible, and predictable patent adjudication across Europe.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the National Litigation Matters Subcommittee for their valuable feedback during the preparation of the survey, as well as the members of the Litigation Committee and the practitioners who provided detailed information for this investigation. Their insights are invaluable in shaping the future of judicial training in Europe.

The respondents provided this information to the best of their knowledge based on the current state of practice in their respective jurisdictions. Judicial structures and training availability may evolve over time.

Comments