From Pied Piper to the UPC: The Vulnerability SMEs Face Before Unitary Justice

In episode 7 of season 4 of “Silicon Valley”, very aptly named “The Patent Troll”, the start-up Pied Piper, which is built on a bold and disruptive vision, suddenly finds itself under threat. A man named Stuart Burke, an unknown with no industrial footprint, sends a cease-and-desist letter asserting ownership of a single patent with vague, overly broad claims. Burke has no product, no technology, no commercial use. What he possesses, however, is an acute understanding of procedural asymmetry: he knows that by simply invoking the threat of litigation, he can compel a small company to settle. He is not defending innovation; he is monetizing fear. As he explicitly states, he targets small companies precisely because they cannot afford to defend themselves.

Though written as satire, the episode offers a piercing commentary on a deeper reality: in a system where the cost of access to Court becomes a weapon, a dubious right and a well-timed threat can suffice to extract compliance.

In such a context, law becomes not an instrument of fairness, but a vehicle for economic coercion. Litigation is no longer about legal substance, it becomes a transactional game of attrition.

Can a Unitary Court Ignore Structural Asymmetry?

What this episode lays bare is the structural fragility of judicial systems that ignore economic vulnerability in their procedural architecture. 

Transposed into the framework of the UPC, the danger is not speculative. When a European SME is sued before the UPC—regardless of the merit of the action in question—it must absorb the full cost of defending itself: legal fees, technical support, cross-border logistics, and procedural translation. In other words, the mere act of being summoned to Court may be enough to break them.

Yet the European Convention on Human Rights, in Article 6 as interpreted in Airey v. Ireland (ECHR, 1979), requires effective access to Court, which must not be rendered illusory by financial barriers. Similarly, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the right to an effective remedy before an impartial Tribunal. The Court of Justice, in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council (Case C-279/09), made it also clear: legal rights must be accompanied by practical, affordable means of enforcement.

The Single Patent as a Systemic Weapon

What makes The Patent Troll episode so disturbing is that it does not involve a complex infringement suit, nor a powerful non-practicing entity armed with a large portfolio. The threat stems from one single patent, wielded by an individual with no interest in technological development. The imbalance is not legal but procedural. And it is precisely this procedural imbalance that may reproduce itself within the UPC framework unless its institutional design acknowledges economic disparity.

Article 71 of the UPCA limits legal aid to natural persons only. Rules 377–380 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) confirm this, thereby excluding most incorporated SMEs, even those with no revenues, no funding, and no internal legal department (see RoP). This formal restriction is at odds with the evolution of European standards on access to justice, which increasingly favour a functional approach based on real economic need rather than legal personality. In Silicon Valley, Richard Hendricks, Pied Piper's young (and sometimes naïve) CEO, encapsulates the situation with chilling clarity: “He’s suing us because he knows we can’t afford to fight him.”

Toward a Justice System That Is Truly Shared

If the UPC aspires to embody European legal progress, it must treat accessibility as a condition of legitimacy. The promise of unity is hollow if it is not paired with universality. A Court that speaks to all Member States but is accessible only to large corporations becomes not a forum of integration, but a stage of exclusion. Silicon Valley, in its sharpest moments, reveals this distortion of principle: when litigation becomes unaffordable, a single patent can derail innovation, not by law, but by attrition.

The UPC has the opportunity (and the responsibility) to reject that outcome. To do so, it must move beyond declarations and commit to concrete procedural reforms that restore the balance of power and make room for modest structures to assert their rights without being financially erased at the courtroom door.