Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent

This platform intends to provide IP practitioners with actionable and searchable summaries of all relevant decisions rendered by the Unified Patent Court. Quickly find the decision(s) you are looking for by using our text-based search, categories, or tags.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field

UPC Decisions

Sorted by date

  • Local Division, Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, April 23, 2026, order on cost security, UPC_CFI_617/2025

    FRAND security of defendant does not relieve claimant from providing cost security : A bank guarantee provided by a defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the claimant (“FRAND security”), …
    3 min Reading time
  • Hamburg Local Division

    LD Hamburg, April 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025

    High number of auxiliary requests (here: 51) may be admissible where the patent faces numerous and diverse validity challenges (headnote 1): The Court must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents, the nature and number of validity attacks (novelty, inventive step, clarity, enablement, added matter), and …
    4 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, April 24, 2026, Order concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP), UPC_COA_57/2026

    Suspensive effect is exceptional and rarely granted for procedural orders: The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Under Art. 74(3) UPCA, …
    4 min Reading time
  • Brussels Local Division

    LD Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026

    Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headline 1): A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded. A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA …
    3 min Reading time
  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, April 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_305/2026

    Provisional measures dismissed where the applicant fails to establish infringement on the balance of probabilities: The Court applied the “more likely than not” test for provisional measures. Since it found that on the balance of probabilities likely the patent is not infringed, the Application was dismissed on this ground alone, without needing to address the …
    5 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield

    Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same …
    8 min Reading time
  • Milan Local Division

    LD Milan, April 21, 2026, Infringement action, UPC_CFI_472/2024

    Long-arm jurisdiction via Art. 8 (1) Brussel Ia Recast Regulation (BR): The “risk of irreconcilable judgements” requires a four-part assessment: same factual and legal situation, predictability and no abuse: The question was whether UPC Milan LD had jurisdiction for co-defendants based in Spain (i.e., non-UPC territory) for infringing actions in Spain. The result was affirmative …
    5 min Reading time
  • Paris Central Division

    CD Paris, April 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_461/2025

    Legal interest in revocation proceedings must be examined by the Court of its own motion, even where the defendant does not challenge admissibility (headnote 1; para. 11): The Court held that legal interest is a question of law forming part of admissibility. This examination was particularly necessary here because the patent had already expired by …
    5 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, April 17, 2026, Order concerning a request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_901/2025

    Non-technical features (on their own a “non-invention” acc. to Art. 52(2) EPC) must not be excluded from the inventive step assessment if they contribute to the technical character of the invention through interaction with other claim features (headnote 1; para. 112): The Court held that the interrelationship and functioning of all claim features must be …
    6 min Reading time

UPC Knowledge Base

Sorted by date

UPC Videos

Sorted by date

UPC Events

Sorted by date

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field

FAQ – General questions about the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent

A Unitary Patent is a European patent for which, after grant, unitary effect has successfully been requested by the proprietor. A traditional European bundle patent granted by the EPO needs to be validated in the respective member states of the EPO and annuities have to be paid to the respective national patent offices to keep the patent in force in the respective members states. In contrast, for a Unitary Patent only a single annuity has to be paid, centrally to the EPO. That also means that the Unitary Patent cannot be partly abandoned in selected countries via non-payment of the respective national annuity.

For all European patents granted on or after the date of entry into force of the UPC Agreement (June 1, 2023), unitary effect can be requested within one month after grant.

The Unified Patent Court will not only be competent for Unitary Patents but also for all existing and future European bundle patents. By filing an opt-out, the respective European bundle patent is removed from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. It can then only be litigated on a national level, unless the opt-out is withdrawn. If an opt-out is withdrawn, the patent cannot be opted out again. Note that Unitary Patents cannot be opted out.

Opting out a patent removes it from the competence of the Unified Patent Court. Hence, it can no longer be attacked by central revocation proceedings at the Unified Patent Court. This may be a reason to file an opt-out. To bring the Unified Patent Court back into the game, e.g., to assert a patent at the Unified Patent Court after having filed an opt-out, the opt-out can be withdrawn. However, a withdrawal is no longer possible if national proceedings have been initiated, e.g., if a national nullity action has been filed. The risk of not being able to get back into the Unified Patent Court system may be a reason not to opt-out.

The language of proceedings at the UPC central division will be that in which the patent was granted (English, German, or French). At a local or regional division, the language of the proceedings may be national language of the respective countries or one of the official languages of the EPO (English, German, or French) if so designated by the respective countries of the local or regional division.

Currently, there are 17 member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden.

The infringement of Unitary Patents can only be asserted at the Unified Patent Court. The infringement of national patents can only be asserted at the respective national courts. For European bundle patents there is a transitional period of 7 years during which infringement can be asserted both at the Unified Patent Court and at national courts in countries in which the patent is validated, unless the patent is opted out, in which case only the national courts have jurisdiction. This dual jurisdiction is not affected by the initiation of actions at the Unified Patent Court or at a national court, i.e., even if a European bundle patent is asserted against an infringer at a national court, it can later still be asserted at the Unified Patent Court and vice versa.

Patent infringement proceedings at the Unified Patent Court will have a strict and tight schedule which intends a first instance decision within 10-12 months. Any decision will cover all member states of the Unified Patent Court. The Unified Patent Court has appointed the leading patent judges in Europe, most of whom have previously been presiding judges at the leading national patent courts in the member states. This ensures highest quality at the Unified Patent Court. Also, the court fees are rather low and the recoverable costs are rather high, which makes the Unified Patent Court attractive for plaintiffs.