It had been a while since I last attended an oral hearing in Europe,; this time, it was in a German courtroom. However, unlike previous cases in German courts, this was a patent infringement trial before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which made the experience even more anticipated and it did not disappoint. Before the memories fade, I want to vividly document the atmosphere of the UPC oral hearing held at the Mannheim Regional Division in Germany.
The public gallery is positioned directly opposite the bench, ensuring that observers have a clear view of the proceedings.
Looking back, Korea also considered modifying courtroom layouts in 2009 by lowering the judge’s bench and introducing triangular and oval seating arrangements to facilitate face-to-face proceedings between the parties. Experiencing the UPC courtroom firsthand has made me reflect on how such spatial arrangements influence the dynamics of legal proceedings.
The oral hearing takes place after approximately eight months of written exchanges between the parties, during which they engage in a structured and strictly alternating submission process to ensure fairness. This approach is somewhat similar to the Korean system, where a sufficient exchange of written arguments precedes the scheduling of an oral hearing or trial session.
However, one key difference in the UPC procedure is that during the written stage, each party is only allowed to respond to the opposing party’s arguments—introducing new arguments requires prior court approval. This means the plaintiff must clearly present the grounds for the claim and supporting evidence in the initial complaint, while the defendant must thoroughly prepare a response brief and supporting evidence. Notably, the first rebuttal brief plays a crucial role in the proceedings, making it one of the most critical submissions in the case.
However, the UPC follows a slightly different approach in conducting its hearings.
At the outset of the hearing, the presiding judge explains their understanding of the patented invention and its background technology based on the patent documents. During this process, the judge also raised questions on key issues identified in the oral hearing preparation order, which had been communicated to both parties in advance. Additionally, if any aspects of the patented invention are difficult to interpret, the judge presents them as questions.
The hearing proceeds in a structured and meticulous manner, with the judge reading through the patent specification and claim elements line by line, asking the parties to clarify the meaning and significance of specific terms and phrases.
The oral hearing preparation order outlines the technical and legal issues to be addressed during the hearing in the form of specific questions. These questions primarily focus on claim interpretation, identifying terms or expressions that the court finds difficult to understand, as well as ambiguous aspects of the parties' arguments.
Additionally, key legal issues requiring further discussion are also presented in a question format, ensuring that all critical matters are systematically examined during the proceedings.
The proceedings take on a discussion-based format, where judges and legal representatives actively exchange their views in a structured debate. The court continuously poses questions until it gains a full understanding of the patent documents and the arguments presented by both parties, while also offering its own interpretations to drive the discussion forward.
If a dispute arises over a particular issue, the judges persistently probe the matter, either to narrow the differences between the parties or to sharpen the focus on the key points of contention. This interactive approach closely resembles the atmosphere of a technical conference, where presenters and the audience engage in an in-depth academic discussion.
Once both parties have presented their arguments regarding claim interpretation, the presiding judge directs the attorneys to gather at the center of the courtroom to examine the actual product. During this phase, the attorneys are required to identify and explain which specific components and features of the product correspond to the patented invention.
After this explanation, the judges express their views, raise additional questions, and continue the hearing, further refining the discussion based on the presented arguments and evidence.
법률 쟁점 역시 재판장이 먼저 해당 쟁점이 왜 중요한 법적 논점이 되는지를 설명한 후, 양측 대리인에게 의견을 묻습니다. 이때 단순한 주장이 아니라, 명확한 법적 근거와 판례를 들어 설명할 것을 요구합니다. 대리인의 답변이 끝나면, 판사들은 자신의 의견을 밝히며 다시 대리인들과 토론을 이어갑니다. 법률적 논의를 심도 있게 다루는 이 과정은 마치 법률 학술대회에서 전문가들이 쟁점을 놓고 토론하는 분위기를 연상시킵니다.
After concluding the discussion on technical issues, the court takes a brief recess before transitioning to the legal issues.
As with the technical phase, the presiding judge first explains why each legal issue is significant, framing the key legal questions at stake. The judge then invites both parties’ attorneys to present their views, requiring them to support their arguments with clear legal principles and relevant case law, rather than making mere assertions.
Once the attorneys provide their responses, the judges express their own interpretations and engage in further discussion with the attorneys. This phase of the hearing involves a deep legal analysis, creating an atmosphere reminiscent of a legal academic conference, where experts rigorously debate and refine their understanding of the issues.
UPC에서의 Oral hearing은 단순한 변론이 아니라, 판사와 대리인 간의 기술적·법률적 논의를 중심으로 이루어지는 토론의 장과 같습니다. 이번 심리를 진행하며, 과거 미국 Federal Central District of California (C.D. Cal.)에서 필립스와 특허소송을 진행했을 때의 Markman hearing이 떠올랐습니다. 당시에도 판사와 대리인이 서로 의견을 주고받으며, 마치 학술토론회처럼 심리가 진행되었는데, UPC의 심리 역시 그러한 방식과 유사했습니다.
At the UPC, an oral hearing is not merely a formal presentation of arguments but rather a forum for in-depth discussions between the judges and legal representatives on both technical and legal issues. The process is highly interactive, resembling a structured debate where the court actively engages with the parties to clarify and refine key points.
As I participated in this hearing, I was reminded of a Markman hearing from a patent litigation case against Philips that I handled before the Federal Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) in the past. In that case, too, the judge and attorneys engaged in a dynamic exchange of viewpoints, making the hearing feel more like an academic symposium than a conventional trial. The UPC’s approach to oral hearings follows a similarly rigorous and discussion-driven model.
6시간에 걸친 모든 절차가 끝나자, 재판장은 판결 선고 예정일을 알려주었습니다. Oral hearing이 종료되었다는 것은 심리가 종결되었음을 의미하며, 이후 추가적인 서면 공방은 허용되지 않습니다. 침해 판단과 손해배상 판단은 단계적으로 이루어지며, 침해 판단은 마치 우리나라에서의 중간 판결과 같은 방식으로 진행됩니다.
After six hours of proceedings, the presiding judge announced the expected date for the judgment. The conclusion of the oral hearing signifies the formal closure of the trial, meaning that no further written submissions will be allowed. The determination of infringement and damages follows a staged approach, with the infringement ruling functioning similarly to an interim judgment in Korean courts.
한편, 산업의 숙련된 기술자의 입장에서 관련 기술과 배경기술, 그리고 숙련된 기술자가 보유한 기술 상식을 좀 더 설명하고 싶은 욕심도 들었습니다. 하지만 재판 과정에서 중요한 것은 특허 명세서를 중심으로 청구항의 각 구성요소를 해석하는 것이었고, 결국 재판부가 이를 충분히 이해하는 데 집중하는 것이 핵심이라는 점을 다시 한번 깨닫게 되었습니다.
From the perspective of an industry expert, I admittedly felt the urge to provide further explanations on the relevant technology, background knowledge, and the common technical understanding of a skilled person in the field. However, I was once again reminded that the core focus of the proceedings is the interpretation of claim elements within the framework of the patent specification. Ultimately, the most critical aspect of the trial is ensuring that the court fully comprehends the patent at issue, rather than presenting additional technical insights beyond what is necessary for claim construction.
이번 사건의 결론이 어떻게 나올지는 아직 알 수 없습니다. 과거 UPC 출범 이전에 독일 법정에서 열린 구술심리에서는 판사가 재판 도중 결론을 직접 언급하는 경우도 많았지만, 이번 심리에서는 그러한 언급 없이 단순히 "충분히 이해했다"는 말이 전부였습니다. 하지만 이번 UPC 구술심리에서 얻은 경험과 교훈은 무엇보다 값진 것이었습니다.
The outcome of this case remains uncertain. In the past, before the UPC was established, it was common for judges in German courts to indicate their position on the case during oral hearings. However, in this hearing, the judges refrained from making any such remarks, stating only that they had “fully understood” the arguments presented.
Nevertheless, the experience and insights gained from this UPC oral hearing have been invaluable, offering a deeper understanding of the court’s procedural approach and judicial reasoning.
무엇보다도 장시간 동안 우리 사건을 위해 헌신적으로 애써준 대리인과 그들의 팀에게 깊이 감사드립니다. 만약 우리가 승소한다면, 우리 측 대리인이 누구인지도 공개할 수 있을 것입니다.
Above all, I am deeply grateful to our legal representatives and their team for their tireless dedication and hard work throughout this lengthy and demanding case. If we prevail in this litigation, I would be more than happy to publicly acknowledge our legal team and their contributions.
구술심리 준비명령서에서 제시된 쟁점과 질문에 대한 답변을 준비하느라 며칠간 잠을 설치고, 보다 쉬운 이해를 위한 자료를 제작하며, 대리인과 변론 방향을 논의하느라 긴장 속에서 시간을 보냈습니다. 이제 긴장이 풀리니 극심한 피로가 몰려옵니다.
I spent several tense days preparing responses to the issues and questions outlined in the oral hearing preparation order, working through sleepless nights to create materials that would facilitate clearer understanding while strategizing with our legal team on the direction of our arguments. Now that the hearing is over and the tension has finally eased, an overwhelming sense of exhaustion is setting in.
구술심리가 끝난 후, 변론을 이끈 변호사의 한마디 "All good." 이라는 자신감 있는 답변을 듣고, 좋은 결과를 기대하며 귀국을 준비합니다.
After the oral hearing concluded, I heard our lead attorney confidently say, "All good." With that reassuring remark, I now look forward to a favorable outcome as I prepare for my return home.
