Patent Litigation in Italy: 7 Essential 2026 Facts

Deciding where and how to sue for infringement has changed more in the last two years than in the previous two decades. Patent litigation in Italy now runs on two parallel tracks: the national specialised business courts that have heard patent disputes for years, and the Milan seat of the Unified Patent Court, which opened its doors in June 2024. Pick the wrong forum and you can lose an injunction, your preferred language of proceedings, and months of momentum. This guide walks through the courts, the remedies, the timelines, and the strategic calls a patent owner or an accused infringer has to make before anyone files a writ.

How Patent Litigation in Italy Is Structured

Since June 2024 there are two distinct forums for patent litigation in Italy, and a patentee usually has to choose between them before doing anything else. The first is the national system of specialised business divisions. The second is the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which since 2023 hears disputes on European patents that have not been opted out, and now has a central division seat in Milan.

The two systems apply different procedural rules, sit in different buildings, and can produce very different geographic reach. A national judgment binds only within Italy. A UPC judgment can reach across every UPC member state where the patent is in force. That single difference drives most forum-selection decisions. If you are still at the filing stage, our guides to how to file a patent in Italy and validating a European patent in Italy cover the steps that come before any dispute.

• National courts — the specialised business divisions (sezioni specializzate in materia di impresa) in Milan, Turin and Rome hear the bulk of Italian patent cases and can decide both infringement and validity.
• Unified Patent Court — the Milan local division hears infringement actions, and the Milan central division handles a defined slice of standalone revocation and non-infringement cases.
• Italian-only patents — a national utility patent granted by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office (UIBM) can only ever be litigated in the national courts, never at the UPC.

The Milan UPC Central Division and What It Hears

The Milan central division became operational on 27 June 2024, joining Paris and Munich as the third seat of the UPC central division. Its subject-matter is defined by the International Patent Classification (IPC): Milan handles patents in IPC section A, “human necessities” — pharmaceuticals, medical devices, agriculture, foodstuffs, tobacco, household articles, clothing and sports and games.

There is one important carve-out. Cases involving supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) remain with the Paris seat. Because most marketed medicines are protected by SPCs, a large share of the highest-value pharmaceutical disputes still land in Paris rather than Milan.

The central division’s core work is standalone revocation actions and actions for a declaration of non-infringement. Where infringement and validity are fought together, the action is more often brought in a local division such as Milan, with any counterclaim for revocation handled there or referred on.

The National Route: Italy’s Specialised Business Courts

The national track has served patentees well for years and remains the default for Italian-only patents and for European patents that have been opted out of the UPC. The specialised business divisions in Milan, Turin and Rome are staffed by judges who see patent cases regularly and can rule on infringement and on a validity defence in the same proceeding.

Italian procedure gives claimants two tools that make it a genuinely attractive venue. The descrizione is an evidence-gathering measure, often granted without notice to the other side, that lets a court-appointed expert enter premises and document an allegedly infringing product or process. A sequestro (seizure) can then freeze the goods themselves.

A court-appointed technical expert (the consulente tecnico d’ufficio, or CTU) usually reports on the technical questions before the panel decides. First-instance decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeal, and a further appeal on points of law lies to the Court of Cassation.

UPC or National Court? The Opt-Out Decision

For a classic European patent validated in Italy, the choice of forum turns on whether the patent has been opted out of the UPC. During the transitional period — seven years from the UPC’s start, and extendable by another seven — a proprietor can file an opt-out under Article 83 of the UPC Agreement, which keeps that patent exclusively within the national courts.

• A Unitary Patent can only be litigated at the UPC; it cannot be opted out.
• A classic European patent validated in Italy can be litigated at the UPC unless it has been opted out under Article 83.
• An Italian national patent is outside the UPC entirely and stays with the specialised business courts.

The trade-off is reach versus familiarity. The UPC offers a single injunction spanning every member state where the patent has effect — powerful leverage against a pan-European infringer, and the same dynamic we describe for patent litigation in Germany. The national route keeps the fight in Italian, in front of judges the local bar knows well, and confines the outcome to Italy. Getting this call right is central to any plan for patent litigation in Italy.

Remedies: Injunctions, Seizure and Damages

Both forums offer the full range of civil remedies. Preliminary injunctions are available where the patentee shows a prima facie valid right and urgency, and permanent injunctions follow a finding of infringement. In the national system these sit alongside the descrizione and sequestro described above.

• Injunctions — preliminary and final, often reinforced by a penalty for each day of continued infringement.
• Damages — recoverable as the patentee’s lost profits, a reasonable royalty, or disgorgement of the infringer’s profits, whichever the court considers appropriate.
• Delivery-up and destruction of infringing goods, plus publication of the judgment.
• Border measures — customs detention of infringing imports at the EU frontier, a useful complement to court action.

The UPC can order the same substantive relief with cross-border effect, which is why a rights-holder facing infringement in several countries at once will often prefer it despite its newer, front-loaded procedure.

Timelines, Language and Costs

Speed is a real differentiator. National first-instance patent cases have historically taken roughly two to three years, though preliminary injunctions can issue within weeks or a few months. The UPC is built for pace: it targets a first-instance decision within about twelve months of the action being filed, with a heavily front-loaded exchange of written pleadings.

Language matters too. National proceedings are conducted in Italian. Before the Milan divisions of the UPC, the case can proceed in Italian or, frequently, in the language in which the patent was granted — often English — which can spare a foreign party a full translation exercise.

On cost, the national route carries court fees, the CTU’s fees and counsel’s fees. The UPC charges a fixed fee plus, for higher-value claims, a value-based fee, and the losing side generally bears a capped share of the winner’s costs. Budgeting both scenarios before filing avoids nasty surprises.

Practical Steps Before You File

Whether you are asserting a patent or defending against one, the groundwork decides the outcome long before a hearing. A patentee should confirm the patent is in force in Italy and check its opt-out status; an accused party should move quickly on a prior-art and validity assessment, because a strong invalidity case can convert a threatened injunction into a settlement on your terms.

1. Confirm where the patent is in force and whether it has been opted out of the UPC.
2. Run a freedom-to-operate or invalidity search before committing to a forum.
3. Choose between the UPC and the national specialised business courts based on geographic reach and language.
4. Preserve evidence early — the descrizione is most effective before the other side is on notice.
5. Model the likely timeline and cost of each route so the litigation supports the commercial goal.

PerspireIP supports patentees and accused infringers across Italy with the technical searches that underpin these decisions — invalidity, freedom-to-operate and infringement analysis — working alongside local litigation counsel in Milan, Turin and Rome.

Build Your Italian Patent Case on Solid Evidence

Facing or planning patent litigation in Italy? PerspireIP delivers the invalidity, freedom-to-operate and infringement-analysis searches that decide these cases. Contact our team to scope the evidence you need, or explore our patent invalidation service in Milan.

Frequently Asked Questions