REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

The UPC
Hub

Case reports, trends, insights and the litigators behind them, in one place.

Link copied
Download The UPC ReviewUPC Decisions

Ready for the UPC long before it opened.

We have run patent litigation across the UK and Germany for well over a decade. When the UPC opened in June 2023, our Uniphy team was ready from day one.

Our litigators and patent attorneys work as one team across UPC, UK and German proceedings.

Tap a year to explore

Established UK and German litigation practices

  • Built experience across electronics, telecoms, pharma and medtech
  • Integrated patent attorneys and litigators

Ran major cross-border actions across the UK and Germany

  • Handled FRAND, SEP and multi-jurisdictional disputes
  • Prepared for pan-European litigation long before the UPC existed

UPC goes live and we launch Uniphy

  • 40 UPC Representatives at launch
  • Seamless transition into UPC litigation from day one
Thought leadership

Our latest thinking on the UPC

See all thought leadership
Chinese companies13 Aug 2026
38%

of 2025 infringement actions at the UPC involved a Chinese party.

Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users

The UPC's 2025 Annual Report shows Chinese parties playing a growing part in UPC litigation. We look at what that means.

Read the article →
SEP and FRAND7 Jun 2026

Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?

The key points SEP owners should weigh when choosing where to litigate.

Read the article →
Procedure21 Jan 2026

Confidentiality at the UPC: what litigants need to know

How sensitive information is protected, and when hearings can be private.

Read the article →
Biopharma13 Apr 2026

Biopharma strategy in 2026: lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC

What biopharma teams can take from 2025 as they plan for 2026.

Read the article →
UK and the UPC26 Jun 2025

Unified Patent Court: the impact of Brexit

Could the UK take part in the UPC without rejoining the EU?

Read the article →
Outcomes

How UPC cases turn out

View more UPC statistics

The results of decided cases, with the median time the Court took. Hover or tab through the lists to explore.

Case reports

Read what the Court is deciding

Tags
No tags match that search.
Court
No courts match that search.
Sector
No sectors match that search.
0 of 100
Case Reports
Tag
Clear all
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Clear all
​
Tag
:
Tag

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs

24 September 2026
2026-09-24

The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍

#
UPC
#
Appeal
#
Costs
#
Penalty payment
Court of Appeal
No items found.
​

Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination

17 July 2026
2026-07-17

The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.

#
UPC
#
Infringement
No items found.
No items found.
​

Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories

25 June 2026
2026-06-25

The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.

#
UPC
#
Preliminary objection
#
Jurisdiction
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC applies party-driven equivalence test in absence of Court of Appeal guidance

25 June 2026
2026-06-25

The Helsinki Local Division found AIM's TV-advertising patent valid but not infringed by TGI, and with no Court of Appeal ruling on equivalence yet, adopted the four-step test both sides put forward, the UPC following the parties' lead.

#
UPC
#
Revocation
#
Doctrine of Equivalents
No items found.
No items found.
​

Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the EPO

10 June 2026
2026-06-10

In Agathon v Intercom, the UPC's Milan Local Division confirmed that statements made during EPO prosecution are not binding but can offer low-weight guidance on the skilled person's view — here narrowing 'abuts' against the patentee.

No items found.
No items found.
No items found.
​

Revocation of an order to inspect and preserve evidence as Applicant did not start proceedings on the merits, R. 198.1 RoP

09 June 2026
2026-06-09

In Otec v Steros, the UPC's Dusseldorf Local Division revoked an ex parte inspection order after the applicant failed to sue on the merits in time, ordering all preserved evidence returned and destroyed.

#
UPC
#
Preservation of evidence
#
Revocation
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC Court of Appeal reverses infringement ruling in both Germany and UK

05 June 2026
2026-06-05

On 2 June 2026 the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings against Kodak in both Germany and the UK, on a prior user right in Germany, and on lack of defendant liability in the UK, while upholding the validity of EP 3511174 as amended and laying down a structured framework for exercising jurisdiction over non-EU designations.

#
UPC
#
Appeal
#
Jurisdiction
#
Infringement
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC finds infringement of two motorcycle tyres patents following international exhibition

05 June 2026
2026-06-05

These Decisions from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan relate to EP2519412 and EP3519207. The Applicant, Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. ("Pirelli") brought two separate infringement actions following respective seizure orders against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd ("Kingtyre") and Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. ("SYR"), in view of the exhibition of allegedly infringing products by the defendants at the "International Motorcycle Exhibition" ("EICMA") between 5 and 10 November 2024.

No items found.
No items found.
No items found.
​

Closest Prior Art Not Quite Close Enough

29 May 2026
2026-05-29

WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.

#
UPC
#
Inventive step
No items found.
No items found.
​

Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected

22 April 2026
2026-04-22

The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.

#
UPC
#
Costs
No items found.
No items found.
​

Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims

21 April 2026
2026-04-21

In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.

#
Revocation
#
UPC
No items found.
No items found.
​

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA

08 April 2026
2026-04-08

A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.

No items found.
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance

30 March 2026
2026-03-30

In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.

#
UPC
#
Appeal
#
Infringement
No items found.
No items found.
​

National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force

30 March 2026
2026-03-30

In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.

#
UPC
#
Damages
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC’s first referral to CJEU

29 March 2026
2026-03-29

In Dyson v Dreame, the UPC Court of Appeal issued its first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral concerns the scope of UPC jurisdiction where a non‑EU manufacturer is sued alongside an EU‑based intermediary acting as an authorised representative, and whether provisional measures may extend to non‑UPC states such as Spain. The decision places important questions about anchor defendants, intermediaries and the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction before the CJEU.

#
UPC
#
Jurisdiction
No items found.
No items found.
​
No results found.
Please try updating your search criteria.
Speak to an expert

Meet our UPC team

Our team includes leading Attorneys-at-Law in Germany, technically skilled European patent attorneys, and highly reputed UK solicitors with experience in some of the largest European patent cases. With specialists based in Germany, Sweden (home to the UPC’s only regional division), and the UK (Europe’s largest litigation venue outside the UPC), we field formidable teams tailored to each case.

Our attorneys have worked together successfully for many years, enabling us to respond quickly and intelligently under the UPC’s tight timelines and new procedures. We offer clients a single point of contact for co-ordinated, cross-border litigation support.

‍

Christof Höhne
Partner, Rechtsanwalt, UPC Representative
Jerome Spaargaren
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
Matthew Blaseby
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
Michael Nielsen
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
Darren Smyth
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, Design Attorney, UPC Representative
Monika Rai
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, Solicitor, UPC Representative
Isabelle Schaller
Partner, Rechtsanwältin, UPC Representative
Sebastian Fuchs
Partner, Rechtsanwalt, UPC Representative
Gareth Probert
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
Heather McCann
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
James Seymour
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative
Catherine Howell
Partner, Solicitor

联系我们

We’d love to hear from you. Whether you're exploring ways to protect, manage or maximise the value of your intellectual property, we are here to provide tailored support and strategic insight.

Please complete the form below and we will be in touch shortly.

感谢您！我们已收到您提交的信息。
哎呀！提交表单时出错了。请重试。
​
对 EIP 的职业感兴趣吗？

查看空缺职位