Preliminary injunctions, court orders which prevent the defendant from operating the alleged infringement pending the outcome of the full infringement trial, are one of a package of provisional or interim measures available to parties litigating at the UPC.
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has quickly become a high impact forum for quick and effective preliminary injunctions (PI). Decisions since the Court opened for business in 2023 suggest a very PI friendly Court.
This comes as no surprise – the court was built with procedural rules taken from the key founding jurisdictions. In Germany it has long been common for patent owners to begin infringement proceedings with a PI application. Germany has decades of PI case law and well-developed PI practices.
However, where before, such measures were confined to Germany, the pan-European scope of UPC injunctions multiplies their value and effect manyfold. Add in the so-called “Long arm” powers, which the UPC is embracing with apparent enthusiasm and which extend the reach of the Court outside UPC member states, and UPC preliminary injunctions must be considered one of the most powerful tools available to patentees in Europe.
1) A PI-friendly forum
Roughly half of applications for preliminary injunctions in the UPC have been granted. The numbers applied for (and granted) as a proportion of all UPC infringement actions is much higher than the proportion before courts in other significant patent jurisdictions, e.g. UK and USA.
It is clear that the UPC is following the German national courts’ permissive approach to preliminary injunctions and patentees are taking advantage of that lassitude. Although the majority of PI applications have occurred in German local divisions, where the judges are well used to them, other local divisions are seeing an uptick in PI applications too.
Again this behaviour is to be expected – PI applications are predominant in the local divisions where they were historically customary in the national courts and that practice then bleeds over into local divisions where PIs were less common but the UPC now provides an opportunity to obtain them.
2) PI Allowance in 80 days
Our analysis of UPC applications for provisional measures indicates that they are normally resolved within three months, with 80 days from application to judgment being the mean.
3) Urgency is critical from “awareness” of infringement
The UPC expects PI applicants to act promptly once they are aware of an alleged infringement.
Some UPC Local Division decisions have sketched the boundaries of this timeline:
- Filing within days after awareness was accepted (UPC CFI 177/2023);
- Within one month accepted (UPC_CFI_452/2023);
- Within two months accepted (UPC_CFI_74/2024);
- Whereas almost three months was found insufficiently urgent (UPC CFI 151/2024).
One decision (UPC CFI 368/2024) references a notional one month window from full awareness to bring a PI claim. However, this decision clarifies it is not a fixed deadline but instead that context is key. Understanding when a PI claimant can be said to have become aware of an infringement is a critical factor in determining timing. Likewise, claimant behaviour post-awareness is also influential in the court’s consideration of whether appropriate urgency has been exhibited.
This evolving area of case law appears to have one trend however, that speed is of the essence when it comes to getting a PI claim granted at the UPC.
4) Multistate leverage raises the stakes—plan for pan-European disruption
Prior to the UPC, preliminary injunctions were limited territorially to the country which granted them (e.g. Germany). Whilst inconvenient, it was possible to organise commercial activity around such isolated territorial obstacles. With the much broader territorial scope of the UPC, it is much more likely that a UPC preliminary injunction will result in a total bar on European activity in relation to alleged infringements.
What is more, the UPC has also been making use of its long-arm provisions to enforce preliminary injunctions in states outside of the UPC. For example, in one case in a non-UPC, EU member state (Spain)(UPC CFI 792/2024), but also, in another case, in a non-UPC, non-EU, European Patent Convention member state (UK)(UPC CFI 355/2023). This evolving area of extra-territorial case law will be covered in more depth in a further issue.
5) More speed less haste—UPC Rule 206.2 RoP
The urgent timeline to get an application for provisional injunction on file from becoming aware of a potential infringer leaves little room for defects in form which could be detrimental to a successful PI claim. In Court of Appeal decision UPC CoA 540/2024 it was confirmed that the Applicant did not provide sufficient reasoning why a preliminary injunction would be necessary under R. 206.2 RoP to prevent a threatened infringement. Pursuant to R. 222.2 RoP, requests, facts and evidence which have not been submitted by a party during proceedings before the Court of First Instance may be disregarded by the Court of Appeal.
Defects in form—inadequate exhibits, translation missteps, or missing authorisations—risk undermining a strong case in a compressed timetable. Additional diligence is required in preparation of PI applications to ensure that they do not fall down on procedural points especially given the short time scales involved.
Steps to take to improve your PI readiness
On offence
- Train staff and put protocols in place to ensure rapid escalation of potential infringements, with as much supporting information as possible, to Legal.
- Create a process for establishing “full awareness”. Record the date of such full awareness and assume a maximum one-month deadline for filing the PI application.
- For significant patents, ensure that all formalities, e,g, ownership, etc. are up to date.
- Also for those patents, prepare a base, generic PI application so that only case specific matters need to be added.
On defence
- If aware of high-risk patents , review validity and consider filing UPC protective letter(s).
- Be aware of typical 80 day timeline to PI judgment from date of application.
- Where possible, consider alternative supply chain routes to skirt UPC territories and/or be ready to cease supply within the UPC jurisdiction at short notice.
Bottom line: The UPC has made preliminary relief faster, more cost effective and more attainable across a much wider territory than was the case before. Businesses that prepare for urgency and do litigation due diligence ahead of the need will be at an advantage.
Marie-Claude Pellegrini
UPC Group
This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
© Withers & Rogers LLP January 2026
