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.

  • Milan Central Division

    CD Milan, October 22, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_2221/2026

    The UPC’s “inherent” jurisdiction to ensure its effectiveness: The jurisdiction extends to the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for declaration of non-infringement, the court may decline to dispose of the action (Rule 360 RoP) and determine that a patent lacked inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal by the patentee: The list …
    3 min Reading time
    →

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

  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_47/2025, UPC_CFI_68/2025

    Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible: The claimant sought, for the first time during the interim procedure, to extend its infringement allegations …
    3 min Reading time
    →
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, October 21, 2026, final decision, UPC-CoA-582/2025 et all.

    Public prior use: Making available a manufacturing method by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC: A manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC if, at the application date, the person skilled in the art could establish the method without undue burden by …
    2 min Reading time
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, final decision, UPC_CFI_52/2025, UPC_CFI_67/2025

    Criteria for assessment of equivalence: Like Panel 1 of the LD Düsseldorf (cf. UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of May 27, 2026), Panel 2 of the LD Düsseldorf applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023, decision of November 22, 2024; UPC_CFI_479/2025, order of September 11, 2025), as, pursuant to …
    2 min Reading time
    →
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_145/2026

    Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review: Applications to amend a patent under Rule 30.2 RoP or amend a case under Rule 263 RoP fall within the first-instance court’s judicial discretion. The Court of Appeal will not substitute its own assessment unless the appellant …
    3 min Reading time
    →
  • Paris Local Division

    LD Paris, October 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2025, UPC_CFI_2279/2025

    Inventive Step: Starting Points Evaluated as a Whole and Strict Thresholds for Combinations (Art. 56 EPC): A realistic starting point must be evaluated as a comprehensive technical disclosure taken as a whole. Selecting an isolated drawing or embodiment merely because it structurally resembles the invention constitutes impermissible hindsight. Because the skilled person lacks inventive imagination, …
    5 min Reading time
    →
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, October 21, 2026, order on the admissibility of appeals, UPC_CoA_149/2026, UPC_CoA_150/2026

    An application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division is not a claim but an exceptional procedural application (Art. 49(6) UPCA, R. 334(h) RoP): According to established case law, the term “case-management decision or order” (R. 333.1 RoP) is to be interpreted broadly. The rejection of an application to change the language …
    3 min Reading time
    →
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-97/2026

    Written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party (R. 4.1 RoP): Written pleadings and other documents must be signed and lodged with the Registry or the relevant sub-registry in electronic form (R. 4.1 RoP). The written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party. It is not sufficient for a party’s representative …
    3 min Reading time
    →
  • Paris Central Division

    LD Paris, October 22, 2026, procedural order, UPC-CFI-0001913/2026, UPC_CFI_3369/2026

    Missing the deadline for a preliminary objection does not in itself establish the UPC’s international jurisdiction: The international jurisdiction of the UPC is, pursuant to Art. 31 UPCA, governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012. According to Art. 26 of that Regulation, concerning prorogation of jurisdiction, the court of the Member State before which …
    2 min Reading time
    →
  • Milan Central Division

    CD Milan, October 9, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_1587/2025

    Added-matter objections require identifying the extended subject-matter (Headnote 1, mn. 108 et seq.): The party alleging added matter must identify, by means of a specific comparison, the subject-matter of the original disclosure that is said to have been extended in the laterapplication or divisional patent (Art. 65(2) UPCA, Art. 123(2), 138(1)(c) EPC). A large number …
    5 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.