Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

The UPC Hub

Case reports, trends, insights and the litigators behind them. One place to follow how the UPC is shaping patent litigation in Europe.

Download The UPC Review
40UPC Representatives when Uniphy launched
3European countries with EIP offices: the UK, Germany and Sweden

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

Landmark wins: Optis v Apple (UK) and Datang v Samsung (Germany)

  • Reinforced our reputation as a pan-European litigation leader
  • Coordinated actions across the UK, Germany and the UPC

Growing UPC caseload and specialist team

  • Enhanced Europe-wide litigation strategy
  • Continuing to shape UPC practice
Uniphy

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

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.

#
UPC
#
Infringement
#
Revocation
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
#
Added subject matter
#
Amendments
#
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.
​

Litigation insurance as security for costs

30 March 2026
2026-03-30

In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.

#
UPC
#
Security for costs
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.
​

LD Paris interprets broadly need for “commercial relationship” and “same alleged infringement” in Art 33(1)(b)

27 March 2026
2026-03-27

In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a jurisdictional challenge and confirmed a broad interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The court held that defendants belonging to the same corporate group may be sued together at the local division where one subsidiary is established, without requiring a direct commercial relationship between each defendant and the anchor defendant. It also confirmed that “the same alleged infringement” requires only identity of the infringed patent, even where the disputed products are not strictly identical.

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

Litigants in person and IP risk: Lessons from Banham v Rogers

26 March 2026
2026-03-26

The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.

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

Clarification of international jurisdiction

26 March 2026
2026-03-26

The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).

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

Language protections don’t bite if you have a website

25 March 2026
2026-03-25

In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.

#
UPC
#
Preliminary objection
No items found.
No items found.
​
No results found.
Please try updating your search criteria.

Winning mixed practice team

Since its establishment in 2011, our patent litigation team has been dedicated to delivering exceptional results.

With the UPC's launch announced in 2023, our patent litigators have been actively advising on various high-profile UPC proceedings, and appearing in UPC divisions across Europe.

​

German and UK litigators

Since 2014 our German patent litigators have handled major German national cases and, more recently, in leading cases at the UPC. EIP was successful in the first UPC anti-anti suit injunction, gained on behalf of our client.

The UK can be decisive when devising a litigation strategy in Europe.  With the success of our team of UK litigators, we are routinely trusted with high value cases including those at the highest Supreme Court of the UK.  We are well placed to advise on using the UK courts and/or the UPC’s “long arm” jurisdiction.

​

Patent attorneys doing litigation

Patent attorneys add unique value to litigation and enhance our results. 

This is especially so for the UPC because all patents litigated at the UPC have been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) and so are governed by a unique blend of UPC and EPO case law which needs intricate knowledge.

Moreover, where possible the same patent attorney will have drafted and strategically prosecuted the case in suit, and can run any parallel EPO opposition proceedings, bringing deep technical continuity to the litigation.

‍

​

UPC strategy

The UPC presents unique challenges compared with national patent litigation.  The streamlined timeline from service to decision is short, around 12 months, and the judges are given limited time to work on a case. The court sets tight deadlines to prepare and file each round of written briefs. A UPC action needs deep technical analysis upfront; to develop the winning strategy and present the best arguments.

Often the UPC case is part of a multi-dimensional portfolio.  Our patent attorneys strategically prosecute patent applications and develop portfolios, working closely with our litigators, to secure claims ready for assertion and robust to challenge at the UPC.

Meet our Head of Knowledge

The UPC is still new by established court standards, and the body of case law is still evolving. Well before the UPC launched, our Head of Knowledge championed the UPC laws and processes, and he has continued to closely follow all the evolving case law.

Darren is a European patent attorney with decades of contentious experience at the EPO, and is an honorary professor at Queen Mary University of London, teaching IP law.

‍

Darren Smyth
Partner, UK and European Patent Attorney, Design Attorney, UPC Representative
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
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

Discover our featured insights

Stay informed with the latest UPC developments and the global IP landscape. Tune into our EIP Talks podcast, explore expert insights and browse our published articles and thought leadership, all designed to keep you ahead in the world of intellectual property.

see more

UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
​
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
​
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
​
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
​
What is the likely timing of the UPC and UP coming into being?
09 June 2022
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is currently completing preparations to be open for business (under the Protocol on the Provisional Application of the UPC Agreement (the ‘PAP-Protocol')).
​

The latest from the Newsroom on UPC

Explore the Newsroom

Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
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.
​
Late Applications for Provisional Measures Refused for Lack of Urgency
14 July 2026
In Ericsson v ASUSTeK, the Milan Local Division refused a provisional measures application filed 21 months into the case, finding continuing infringement and rising losses alone do not establish urgency.
​
UPC revokes provisional injunction on motorbike helmet intercoms system
29 June 2026
The UPC Local Division Milan revoked Cardo's provisional injunction against Reso, ruling its helmet intercom products fall outside the scope of EP4240194, neither literally nor by equivalence.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
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 applies party-driven equivalence test in absence of Court of Appeal guidance
25 June 2026
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.
​
Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the EPO
10 June 2026
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.
​
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
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 Court of Appeal reverses infringement ruling in both Germany and UK
05 June 2026
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 finds infringement of two motorcycle tyres patents following international exhibition
05 June 2026
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.
​

Contact us

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.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form. Please try again.
​
Interested in a career at EIP?

View Open Roles