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.

  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026

    Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by …
    5 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, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025

    The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary …
    5 min Reading time
  • Milan Local Division

    LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024

    Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict …
    5 min Reading time
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026

    Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence …
    6 min Reading time
  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, May 11, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026

    Under R. 190 RoP and Art. 59(1) UPCA, evidence production orders require four cumulative conditions: plausible evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality : The Court grounded this framework in prior UPC case law, specifically Winnow v Orbisk (LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_327/2024) and Oppo v Panasonic (CoA, UPC_CoA_298,299,300/2024). The conditions derive from R. 190.1 …
    6 min Reading time
  • The Hague Local Division

    LD The Hague, May 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, UPC_CFI_2031/2025

    A review under R.197.3 RoP only benefits the party that files it; co-defendants who do not seek review remain bound by the original order: The Court held that where only one of several defendants files a review application, the review can only affect the order vis-à-vis that defendant, analogous to the principle that an appeal …
    5 min Reading time
  • Brussels Local Division

    LD Brussels, May 7, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025

    Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP): An acknowledgment by a party that the opposing party was the “successful party” in first instance proceedings does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim compensation as a “partially successful party” …
    5 min Reading time
  • Brussels Local Division, Local Division

    LD Brussels, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026

    The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings …
    5 min Reading time
  • Central Division, Milan Central Division

    CD Milan, May 4, 2026, Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_552/2025

    The skilled person under Art. 56 EPC is a notional figure, i.e., affiliations to specific companies are irrelevant and inadmissible as differentiating characteristics: The skilled person represents an average level of knowledge in the relevant technical field, reflecting common general knowledge at the priority date. This fictitious individual cannot be identified with any real person. …
    6 min Reading time
  • Hamburg Local Division, Local Division

    LD Hamburg, May 5, 2026, Order on Penalty Payments, UPC_CFI_1881/2025

    Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP: The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips). A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures …
    4 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.