A US patent portfolio meets Europe through choices that cannot be undone: an opt-out from the Unified Patent Court withdrawn once is withdrawn for good, and a national action during the transitional period bars the portfolio from the Court permanently. Around that decision sit questions the US system answers differently, including whether an AI-generated drug candidate has a human inventor, who owns an invention made by an employee in a Swiss laboratory under Art. 332 OR, how Switzerland's exhaustion rules shape parallel imports of pharmaceuticals, and what a technology-transfer license actually conveys now that the EU, UK and Swiss block exemptions enumerate different rights. The analyses below cover each, with the regulatory exclusivities of the EU Pharma Package addressed in that series.
5 insights · latest July 2026
Art. 83 UPCA opt-outs made blind in 2023 can now be tested against three years of UPC rulings, and withdrawal is one-way: a national action during the transitional period bars a US portfolio from the Court permanently.
AI-generated drug candidates raise unresolved inventorship questions. Patent offices require human inventors, but how much human contribution suffices?
Art. 332 OR sorts employee inventions into three categories a standard US invention-assignment clause does not track, and one of them carries a statutory compensation claim the employment contract cannot waive.
Switzerland's exhaustion rules create unique pharmaceutical distribution dynamics. Patent and trademark exhaustion interact with competition law implications.
Since 1 May 2026 the EU and UK block exemptions enumerate different technology rights: utility models sit inside the EU list, database rights inside the UK's, and Switzerland has none, so one licensing clause grants three different objects.
Counsel on this topic: Pharma & MedTech transactions counsel.
Good questions deserve specific answers.
Get in Touch