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

  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, January 16, 2026, Order regarding application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_000935/2025

    The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.: An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA). It must …
    4 min Reading time
  • Mannheim Local Division

    LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025

    General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to …
    2 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_5/2025, UPC_CoA_237/2025, UPC_CoA_328/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 60% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026 …
    3 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_257/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 20% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026 …
    3 min Reading time
  • Paris Central Division

    CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025

    A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via …
    4 min Reading time
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025

    Infringement of a medical device requires a potential use to be lege artis. A use that damages the device cannot establish infringement.: The claimant argued for an infringing use that required piercing the device’s mesh. The Court held this was not a proper, professional use but an emergency measure, and thus irrelevant for the infringement …
    4 min Reading time
  • Mannheim Local Division

    LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026

    Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused …
    4 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024

    For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty …
    4 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025

    Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s …
    2 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.