Patent law · Practice note · As of November 2026

Unified Patent Court (UPC): jurisdiction, procedures and strategy

Since 1 June 2023, the Unified Patent Court (UPC; Einheitliches Patentgericht) has made it possible to enforce European patents in up to 18 EU states with a single action – and to challenge them centrally in the same way. We explain the court’s structure, types of proceedings, procedural steps, costs and the strategic choices facing patent proprietors and defendants.

What is the Unified Patent Court?

The Unified Patent Court is based on the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (EPGÜ/UPCA) of 19 February 2013. It is a court common to the participating EU Member States and thus part of their respective legal systems. Since its launch on 1 June 2023, it has ruled on the infringement and validity of European patents with effect for all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force.

For companies, this marks a fundamental change: where parallel proceedings previously had to be conducted in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy – with the risk of conflicting outcomes – a single action now suffices. Conversely, a competitor can bring down a patent for the entire UPC territory with a single revocation action.

Participating states

The Agreement currently applies in 18 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania (since 1 September 2024), Slovenia and Sweden.

Not covered are, in particular, Spain, Poland and Croatia, which have not joined the system, as well as states that have signed but not yet ratified the Agreement (such as Ireland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece and Cyprus). In Ireland, ratification requires a referendum; the vote originally scheduled for June 2024 has been postponed indefinitely. The non-EU states of the European Patent Convention – such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey – are not part of the UPC either. For these countries, the national courts remain competent.

Structure of the court

Court of First Instance

• Local divisions in the Contracting Member States, including in Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim and Munich, in Paris, Milan, The Hague, Brussels, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Vienna, Lisbon and Ljubljana.
• Regional division for Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Nordic-Baltic division based in Stockholm).
• Central division with its seat in Paris and sections in Munich and – since June 2024 – Milan. Internal competence depends on the International Patent Classification (IPC) of the patent in suit; Milan, for example, is responsible for Section A (human necessities), and Munich for, among others, chemistry and metallurgy (C) and mechanical engineering (F).

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has its seat in Luxembourg, as does the court’s Registry. It decides on appeals against final decisions and against certain orders of the Court of First Instance and, through its leading decisions, shapes the case law of the entire system.

Judges

The panels are multinational and combine legally qualified judges with technically qualified judges who have expertise in the relevant field of technology. Local divisions generally sit with three legally qualified judges; a technically qualified judge is added on request or where the revocation claim is heard together with the infringement action. The central division sits with two legally qualified judges and one technically qualified judge.

Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC)

In addition, the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), with seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon, began operating in June 2026. It offers mediation, arbitration and expert determination for patent disputes – an option that can enable an amicable solution, particularly in licensing and cooperation relationships.

Which division has jurisdiction?

The choice of forum is one of the most important strategic decisions in the UPC system:

• Infringement actions must be brought before the local or regional division in whose territory the infringement has occurred or may occur, or before the division where the defendant has its registered office or residence. Since infringing products are often distributed in several states, the claimant regularly has a choice between several divisions.
• Stand-alone revocation actions and actions for a declaration of non-infringement belong before the central division.
• If an infringement action between the same parties is already pending, a revocation action must be brought as a counterclaim before the division hearing the infringement action.
• Where the defendant has no registered office in a Contracting Member State, the infringement action may also be brought before the central division.

If a counterclaim for revocation is filed in infringement proceedings before a local division, the division may, under Art. 33(3) UPCA (EPGÜ), hear both issues itself, refer the counterclaim to the central division (so-called bifurcation) or – with the agreement of the parties – refer the entire case there. In practice, the local divisions predominantly hear infringement and validity together, which speeds up the proceedings and avoids conflicting outcomes.

Types of proceedings at a glance

Infringement action

With an infringement action, the patent proprietor – or an exclusive licensee – can claim injunctive relief, information, recall and destruction, publication of the decision and damages. The injunction applies uniformly in all UPC states in which the patent is in force. Damages can be determined in the same proceedings or in separate subsequent proceedings for the determination of damages.

Revocation action and counterclaim for revocation

A patent can be revoked or maintained in amended form with effect for all UPC states – even without a prior opposition at the European Patent Office and without any time limit. In the proceedings, the patent proprietor may file auxiliary requests with amended claims. For defendants in an infringement action, the counterclaim is the central instrument of defence.

Declaration of non-infringement

Companies seeking legal certainty before market entry can obtain a declaration that a product or process does not infringe a particular patent. As a rule, this requires that the patent proprietor has previously been asked, without success, to provide a corresponding acknowledgement.

Provisional measures

In urgent cases, the court may issue preliminary injunctions, including for the entire UPC territory. In doing so, it weighs the interests of the parties and examines whether infringement and the validity of the patent are sufficiently likely. Acting promptly is decisive: anyone who waits too long after becoming aware of the infringement risks urgency being denied.

Preservation of evidence, inspection and freezing orders

The UPC provides for the preservation of evidence modelled on the French saisie-contrefaçon, orders for inspection and orders freezing assets. Particularly in the case of process patents or products that are difficult to access, this is an effective means of proving infringement.

Protective letter

Anyone expecting an application for provisional measures can file a protective letter (Schutzschrift) with the court as a precaution. It is taken into account by all divisions and can prevent an order from being issued without a hearing.

Actions against decisions of the EPO concerning the unitary patent

If, for example, the European Patent Office rejects a request for unitary effect, this decision can be challenged before the UPC. The central division has jurisdiction.

Course of infringement proceedings

Proceedings before the UPC are heavily “front-loaded”: all facts, evidence and legal arguments must be presented in full in the first written pleadings. Later submissions are admissible only to a limited extent. Careful preparation before filing the action – searches, infringement analysis, preservation of evidence, expert opinions – is therefore decisive.

1. Written procedure: statement of claim with full reasoning and offers of evidence; statement of defence within three months of service, combined, where applicable, with a counterclaim for revocation; followed by reply and rejoinder within fixed, short time limits. If a counterclaim is filed, the patent proprietor may submit auxiliary requests with amended claims.
2. Interim procedure: the judge-rapporteur prepares the oral hearing, may clarify questions, order evidence and hold an interim conference. Settlement options are also explored.
3. Oral hearing: usually one hearing day, at which the panel discusses the disputed issues with the parties. Under the Rules of Procedure, the oral hearing at first instance should normally take place within one year.
4. Decision: the written decision is issued as soon as possible after the hearing. It is in principle immediately enforceable; the court may make enforcement subject to the provision of security.
5. Appeal: an appeal against the final decision must be lodged with the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg within two months of service and substantiated within four months. Considerably shorter time limits, generally 15 days, apply to appeals against orders.

Language of proceedings

Before the local and regional divisions, proceedings are generally conducted in the official language of the state concerned or in an additional language admitted by that state – almost all divisions, including the German ones, admit English. Under certain conditions, the language in which the patent was granted may be designated as the language of proceedings. Before the central division, the language of proceedings is the language of the patent. In practice, the majority of proceedings are now conducted in English, followed by German.

Representation before the UPC

Parties before the Unified Patent Court must be represented – by lawyers authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State, or by European patent attorneys with the required additional qualification. Patent attorneys may also assist the representatives. Particularly in UPC proceedings, which combine questions of infringement and validity, close cooperation between legal and technical expertise is a key to success.

Costs and cost reimbursement

Court fees consist of a fixed fee and – for values in dispute above EUR 500,000 – a value-based fee. The fees were increased significantly as of 1 January 2026. The fixed fee for an infringement action now amounts to EUR 14,600 and for a stand-alone revocation action to EUR 26,500; applications for the preservation of evidence and for inspection are subject to a fee of EUR 5,000. Reductions apply to small and micro enterprises.

The unsuccessful party generally bears the court costs and the reasonable costs of the successful party. However, recoverable representation costs are capped according to value-in-dispute brackets. The court may also order security for legal costs, for example against claimants based outside the EU.

Cross-border reach (“long-arm jurisdiction”)

Since the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux of 25 February 2025 (C-339/22), it has been settled that the courts at the defendant’s domicile can also rule on the infringement of foreign parts of a European patent – even for states outside the EU. The UPC Court of Appeal confirmed this jurisdiction in June 2026 in Fujifilm v Kodak while also setting limits: the law of the respective protecting state must be applied, and special rules apply to questions of validity in non-UPC states. On further questions – for example the reach vis-à-vis non-EU companies via so-called anchor defendants – the Court of Appeal made its first reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union in March 2026.

For patent proprietors, this opens up the possibility of asserting claims against defendants domiciled in a UPC state in a single set of proceedings, including, for example, for the United Kingdom, Spain or Switzerland. For companies domiciled in a UPC state, the litigation risk increases accordingly.

Opt-out and transitional period

During a transitional period of seven years from 1 June 2023 – i.e. until May 2030, with the possibility of extension by up to a further seven years – the following applies to classic European patents (bundle patents) and supplementary protection certificates based on them:

• Actions may be brought either before the UPC or before the national courts.
• Proprietors and applicants can exclude the jurisdiction of the UPC by means of an opt-out. The opt-out is free of charge, must be declared by all proprietors for all states and in principle has effect for the entire term of the patent. It is excluded if an action concerning the patent is already pending before the UPC.
• The opt-out can be withdrawn (“opt-in”) provided that no national proceedings are pending; a renewed opt-out is no longer possible thereafter.

There is no opt-out for unitary patents – they are always subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC.

Strategic considerations

For patent proprietors

• Portfolio analysis: for which patents does the advantage of central enforcement outweigh the risk of central revocation, and vice versa? This determines the decision between opting out and remaining in the system.
• Choice of division, language of proceedings and timing – including whether to apply first for provisional measures.
• Early preservation of evidence and complete preparation of the action, since later submissions are possible only to a limited extent.
• Examining whether claims for non-UPC states can also be covered via long-arm jurisdiction.

For companies that must respect third-party patents

• Freedom-to-operate analyses for the entire UPC territory and monitoring of relevant patents and applications.
• Filing protective letters in response to specific warning letters or ahead of trade fair appearances.
• Considering a revocation action before the central division as a means of attack – also to remove obstacles to market entry.
• Preparing for the short time limits: after service of an action, three months remain for a complete statement of defence including any counterclaim.

The UPC in figures

According to published analyses, around 880 cases had been brought before the Court of First Instance by the end of May 2025, including some 320 infringement actions and around 370 revocation attacks, mostly in the form of counterclaims. More than three quarters of the infringement actions were brought before the four German local divisions. Around 55 per cent of proceedings were conducted in English and about 38 per cent in German. Germany is thus the central venue of the new system.