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

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.
​

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.
​
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

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