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

R.262A applications required to maintain confidentiality in UPC Proceedings

03 March 2026
2026-03-03

The Court of Appeal clarified the necessity of formal applications to maintain confidentiality in Unified Patent Court (UPC) proceedings when disclosing ordered information. This ruling arose from a dispute involving patent infringement and confidentiality claims between EOFlow and Insulet.

#
UPC
#
Confidentiality
No items found.
No items found.
​

Long arm not available for amended patent

02 March 2026
2026-03-02

IMC Créations is a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles. Among other things, it sells locks for the side and rear doors of commercial vehicles. Mul-T-Lock belongs to the Assa Abloy group and specialises in high security locking and access control systems, in particular pick-resistant keys and locks. IMC alleged that Mul-T-Lock’s MPV 1000 padlock infringes its unitary patent EP4153830 and the corresponding Swiss national validation.

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

Re-establishment of rights following failure to apply for a cost decision in time

02 March 2026
2026-03-02

The dispute arises out of earlier proceedings between Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (claimant) and Vibrantz GmbH (defendant), relating to European Patent No. 3215288. The Munich Local Division issued a substantive decision on 10 October 2025 addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. Among other findings, the court partially revoked the patent in three Contracting Member States and dismissed the infringement action. In its cost decision, the court apportioned 40% of the costs to the defendant and 60% to the claimant.

#
UPC
#
Re-establishment
#
Costs
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC confirms that the “Malta Problem” bars a Unitary Patent

02 March 2026
2026-03-02

It was foreseen that the requirements of the Unitary Patent Regulation (1257/2012) might result that old European patent applications (effective filing date before 1 March 2007) could be ineligible for unitary patent protection. The UPC has now confirmed the view of the EPO that this is indeed the case.

#
Unitary Patent
#
UPC
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC Mannheim Local Division invalidates cyberanalysis patent – infringement claim dismissed

02 February 2026
2026-02-02

The UPC Mannheim Local Division revoked Centripetal’s patent relating to automated cyber‑event analysis, finding the claimed combination of static and machine‑learned algorithms anticipated by prior art (HAWK) and additional amendments lacking inventive step. With the patent invalidated in Germany and France, the infringement claim against Palo Alto Networks was dismissed. An appeal to the UPC Court of Appeal remains possible.

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

Reasonable expectation of success based on clinical trial disclosure: UPC Local Division takes a different view from EPO Board of Appeal

29 January 2026
2026-01-29

The UPC Munich Local Division invalidated Sanofi’s cabazitaxel patent, finding that Phase III clinical trial disclosures created a reasonable expectation of success—departing from the EPO’s earlier conclusion.

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

UPC court of appeal sets out comprehensive guidance on key substantive issues

29 January 2026
2026-01-29

The UPC Court of Appeal’s November 2025 decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards provide the most comprehensive guidance to date on inventive step, claim construction, sufficiency, added matter, and procedural rules. The Court clarified how the “objective problem” should be formulated, reinforced the need for a clear pointer or motivation for obviousness, and aligned many principles with established EPO and national case law. The judgments also address injunctions, proportionality, costs, competence, and amendment admissibility—making them essential reading for anyone navigating UPC litigation.

#
UPC
#
Claim Construction
#
Added subject matter
#
Sufficiency
No items found.
No items found.
​

Court of Appeal gives Babek’s trade mark a gold star for validity

18 December 2025
2025-12-18

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Babek International Ltd’s trade mark after Iceland Foods Ltd challenged its registration. The judgment clarified that a trade mark must be a single, clearly and precisely represented sign capable of distinguishing goods or services. The court found that Babek’s mark met these requirements, rejecting arguments about lack of clarity and permissible variations. Iceland’s appeal was dismissed, affirming the trade mark’s validity and providing guidance on interpreting trade mark descriptions and representations.

#
Appeal
No items found.
No items found.
​

Mannheim LD asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-EU defendant

15 December 2025
2025-12-15

Hurom v. NUC UPC-CFI_162/2024 LD Mannheim Decision of 2 October 2025

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

Another day, another interim injunction granted by the UK High Court: Boehringer Ingelheim find success against Dr Reddy

04 December 2025
2025-12-04

Boehringer Ingelheim successfully obtained another interim injunction from the UK High Court against Dr Reddy, reinforcing its patent rights in ongoing pharmaceutical litigation. The article outlines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and what this decision means for patent enforcement in the UK.

#
Basic
No items found.
No items found.
​

When is a managing director an accomplice to patent infringement?

26 November 2025
2025-11-26

#
UPC
#
Infringement
#
Other procedural aspects
No items found.
No items found.
​

Court of Appeal of the UPC considers post-filed experimental data irrelevant to claim construction

25 November 2025
2025-11-25

#
Recent cases
#
UPC
#
Claim interpretation
No items found.
No items found.
​

Auxiliary claim requests inadmissible and indicative of likely invalidity in applications for provisional measures.

25 November 2025
2025-11-25

The UPC’s Munich Local Division denied Onward Medical’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Niche Biomedical, finding serious doubts over the novelty of the granted claim of EP 3 421 081 B1 in light of the Yoo prior art. The court also rejected all eight auxiliary claim requests, holding that amended claims cannot be used to establish likely validity in provisional‑measures proceedings. The decision reinforces that interim relief is only available for patents that appear robust in their granted form.

#
Recent cases
#
UPC
#
Permanent injunction
No items found.
No items found.
​

UPC continues the Mushroom Saga with decision by default

20 November 2025
2025-11-20

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

No Declaration of Non-Infringement for Alternative Product

12 November 2025
2025-11-12

The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The court found the request inadmissible because HL Display had not asserted infringement against the alternative design, and Black Sheep had not formally sought acknowledgment of non-infringement before filing the counterclaim.

#
Infringement
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
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