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.

  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 27, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025

    Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal: The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested …
    4 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

  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 26, 2026, order to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026

    Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect: The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production …
    3 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024

    Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of …
    2 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025

    The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of …
    3 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 26, 2026, security for costs, UPC_CoA_74/2026

    discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous : The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest. facts and arguments not raised cannot …
    2 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 22, 2026, judgement by default, UPC_CoA_21/2026

    For the purposes of R. 355.2 RoP the appellant is regarded as the claimant in the appeal proceedings: A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not …
    3 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026

    The Court of Appeal may authorize oral hearings in a language other than the language of proceedings, without formally changing the language of the case, based on considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency: The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English …
    5 min Reading time
  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026

    Assuming jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Regulation requires a sufficient connection between the defendant and the court seised: The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR). …
    2 min Reading time
  • Hamburg Local Division

    LD Hamburg, May 20, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_553/2025

    An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.: In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the obligation to refrain from an act which has created a continuing disturbance must generally be interpreted as encompassing …
    3 min Reading time
  • Luxembourg Court of Appeal

    CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026

    Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a …
    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.