These seven UPC decisions address two main axes: evidence preservation and access to proceedings. On preservation, a modest evidentiary threshold suffices for ex parte relief (Hybridgenerator), Nordic-Baltic practice diverges from French/Belgian/Italian seizure traditions by involving defendants pre-grant and imposing joint cost ceilings (Imbox), and Munich confirms undisputed facts bind parties even where the request itself is rejected as unnecessary (Swarco).
On access, the cases consistently distinguish « specific » from « general » interest: a parallel EPO opposition on the same patent justifies access (Phoenix Contact), while a general professional interest (Suinno) or an insufficiently substantiated interest (Oerlikon) does not. Access requests remain cost-free for applicants regardless of outcome (Edwards, Oerlikon).
This September 2025 webinar highlights the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) commitment to strict procedural efficiency, fairness, and structural clarity across three key decisions. In Total Semiconductor v. Texas Instruments, the Mannheim Local Division affirmed that courts can order substantial security for costs (€600,000) against non-practicing entities lacking financial transparency, while clarifying that only a full court panel, not a judge rapporteur, can deny leave to appeal.
Meanwhile, in MERZ v. Viatris, the Paris Local Division utilized its Rule 9 powers to enforce strict procedural economy in provisional measures, aggressively cutting a disparate 473-page defense submission down to 70 pages to restore equality between the parties.
Finally, in HMD Global v. Fraunhofer, the Hamburg Local Division prioritized fairness and defendant interests by switching the language of proceedings from German to English, establishing that the court will consider the dominant linguistic practices of the underlying technology sector when determining the language of a case.
This October 2025 webinar highlights key procedural developments in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) through two landmark decisions regarding remedies and enforcement. In Meril v. Edwards, the Paris Central Division established a major precedent on proportionality by tailoring injunctive relief around public health interests, granting a specific carve-out for life-saving heart valves where no clinical alternative exists.
Concurrently, in Kodak v. Fujifilm, the Court of Appeal clarified the UPC’s penalty framework by adopting a continental astreinte model. It ruled that while courts cannot impose retroactive financial penalties without a prior order, they retain the flexible discretion to issue distinct, non-automatic penalty orders subsequently to deter future non-compliance.
This November 2025 webinar highlights key UPC rulings: the Paris Division affirmed that examination history strictly limits equivalence claims (RPN) and that FRAND assessments are valid only when incidental to an infringement claim (Sun Patent), while the Düsseldorf and Brussels Divisions demonstrated a pro-applicant approach by lowering the threshold for ex parte evidence preservation based on product unavailability or pending marketing authorizations (Van Loon; Organon).
In March 2026, various divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued pivotal decisions clarifying its procedural boundaries and jurisdictional scope. The Court of Appeal strictly limited the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over non-EU damages, established a strict duty of full disclosure for applicants seeking ex parte orders under the principle of proportionality, and ruled that FRAND licensing claims are merely ancillary to main infringement actions.
Concurrently, local divisions refined operational rules, with Brussels setting specific financial criteria to order security for legal costs in cross-border disputes, and Paris adopting a flexible interpretation to permit the joinder of multiple defendants within a corporate group.
These seven UPC decisions cover third-party access and ex parte evidence preservation. On access, Munich set a high bar requiring concrete, legitimate interest, while Nordic-Baltic applied a lower « credible explanation » threshold, with the Court of Appeal separately limiting intervention to parties with direct (not merely similar) interests. On seizure, Milan, Brussels, and Paris consistently maintained a low threshold for ex parte relief based on urgency or digital evidence risk, while diverging from French/Italian practice through multi-premises orders, restricted representation, variable guarantees, and independent expert requirements.
Between March and June 2024, UPC decisions clarified that third-party access under Rule 262.1(B) RoP is limited to party-submitted pleadings and evidence—excluding registry communications, court orders, and undefined future documents—with general-interest access allowed only post-decision, while specific-interest access (e.g., parallel EPO parties) may be granted during proceedings via a balancing test. On stays pending EPO opposition outcomes, the Court of Appeal set a near-absolute rule against stays under Article 33(10) UPCA/Rule 295 RoP, permitting them only where a truly rapid EPO decision is expected, and accepting procedural duplication to preserve the one-year timeline. Separately, in Photon Wave, the Paris Local Division refused to switch the language of proceedings from French to English and denied a late intervener extra time, illustrating the rules’ restrictive, fairness-limited application.
Four UPC decisions collectively clarify procedural rigor and remedy standards across the Court. In Microsoft v. Suinno (Paris, 7 Jan 2026), the Paris Central Division revoked the patent for added matter and held that under Rule 30 ROP all sets of amended claims must be filed simultaneously, rendering 16 of 17 auxiliary requests inadmissible. In WhiteWater West v. American Wave (Paris, 12 Jan 2026), the Court confirmed proper service on a US defendant via the Hague Convention/OIJA and granted a default decision, finding the patent’s claim 1 lacked inventive step under the new Court of Appeal test.
In Heraus v. Vibrantz (Munich, 13 Jan 2026), the Court ruled that both parties to a split cost award are « successful parties » who must each file a cost application within one month, though it exceptionally granted re-establishment of rights given unclear procedural rules. Finally, in Canon v. Katun (Düsseldorf, 11 Feb 2026), the Court granted an injunction, destruction of infringing products, and €100,000 in interim damages while limiting publication of the decision, emphasizing proportionality and placing the burden of proof on the defendant.
Based on a January 2026 webinar, various divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) have issued pivotal rulings standardizing the assessment of inventive step. The Court of Appeal unified the system by establishing a refined three-step framework in Amgen v. Sanofi—permitting multiple realistic starting points and focusing on the expectation of success—while ruling in Meril v. Edwards that non-obvious alternatives qualify for protection without requiring a technical improvement.
This appellate standard resolved prior first-instance divergence, where the Munich Central (Sanofi v. Amgen) and Munich Local (Edwards v. Meril) divisions strictly adhered to the EPO’s problem-solution approach, while the Paris Central Division (Enjoy v. VMR) derived the objective problem solely from the patent itself. Lower courts immediately applied this framework in early 2026, with the Paris Local Division (IMC Creation v. Multi-Loc) executing an exhaustive analysis across five prior art combinations, and the Paris Central Division (Whitewater West v. American Wave) adopting a more streamlined, patent-focused application of the test.
The UPCLA webinar, held on May 28, 2026, outlined four key decisions from the UPC. In Adobe v. KICS, the court determined that an appeal regarding a security for costs order is only admissible with prior judicial authorization. In Gilead v. AMMS, the court applied a holistic methodology to assess the inventive step of a biotechnology patent, concluding that the Remdesivir patent in question was invalid for lack of inventiveness.
In Ericsson v. Azestek, the court ruled that product offerings made via a domain name can constitute patent infringement. Lastly, in CILIMED v. Polytech, the court clarified the legal requirements for the validity of patent opt-outs and affirmed that an opt-out cannot be withdrawn if national proceedings are already pending
The UPC’s June 2026 rulings clarified key procedural and jurisdictional issues: in Thiroux v. Valénier and Maguind, expert impartiality was upheld despite pre-hearing contact with the claimant, requiring consistent patent interpretation across proceedings. La Siddhi v. Athena and Infoblox v. Nixu confirmed that neither SME status nor shell-entity structuring exempts claimants from security for costs under Article 69.4 UPCA. Kodak v. Fujifilm established a comprehensive framework for extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA, introducing conditional orders for non-UPC EP designations pending national validity decisions. Valeo v. Robert Bosch confirmed that Article 33.1(3) UPCA gives claimants equal choice between the Central Division and local/regional divisions when defendants sit outside UPC territory, expanding forum-shopping options.
This March 2025 webinar highlights the ECJ who held that Article 24(4) Brussels I Recast must be interpreted narrowly: a court seised under Article 4 retains jurisdiction over patent infringement even where the defendant raises an invalidity defense, which must be pursued before the granting state’s courts. For third-state patents, the Article 4 court may rule on both infringement and validity, with any invalidity finding having inter partes effect only. The decision facilitates consolidation of multi-jurisdictional infringement claims before a single EU forum and prevents defendants from derailing jurisdiction through late invalidity pleas.