As of 30 June 2025, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has completed two full years of operation. The caseload offers a comprehensive view of the Court’s growing role in European patent litigation. The data reveals not only the volume and distribution of cases but also emerging procedural trends and jurisdictional dynamics.
Here we run the rule over the court as it enters its third year.
A Growing Docket: 946 Cases in two years
Since its launch on 1 June 2023, the Court of First Instance of the UPC has received a total of 946 cases. These include 351 infringement actions, 321 counterclaims for revocation, 68 stand-alone revocation actions, and 94 applications for provisional measures, preserving evidence, orders for inspection and application for order to freeze assets. The figures reflect a steady uptake of the UPC system by litigants across Europe.
Germany’s local divisions dominate the infringement docket. Outside Germany, Paris, the Hague and Milan local divisions also show significant activity. The 321 counterclaims for revocation stem from 188 individual infringement actions, a procedural artefact of earlier rules requiring separate filings by each defendant. Meanwhile, the Paris central division has emerged as the primary venue for stand-alone revocation actions. That is a consequence of the fact that the UPC rules mandate those cases be filed there for all technologies except some life science and mechanical engineering patents, which go to Milan and Munich respectively.
The Court has also seen 94 applications for provisional measures, preserving evidence, orders for inspection and application for order to freeze assets. These figures suggest that litigants are increasingly leveraging the UPC’s procedural tools to secure relief.
The Court of Appeal’s activity is also growing rapidly, thereby establishing jurisprudence. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has received a total of 209 appeals. This activity reflects a procedural landscape that will mature very quickly with a significant body of case law.
The Good
Timeline speed
Statistics of the decisions of the UPC reveal a promising trend in procedural efficiency. On average, decisions on provisional measures are rendered in under 80 days, reflecting the Court’s responsiveness in urgent matters. Revocation actions are typically resolved within approximately 390 days, while infringement actions take around 400 days to reach a decision. These timeframes suggest that the UPC is close to its goal of granting these decisions within the ambitious 12-month window in order to ensure fast patent litigation procedures.
High number of preliminary injunctions ruled
The UPC has quickly established itself as a preferred jurisdiction for patent holders seeking urgent measures. Provisional injunctions have been granted at a particularly high rate, with around 50% of applications resulting in decisions in favour of the patent holder (which is higher than in many national courts). This trend underlines the Court’s commitment to ensuring swift and effective provisional protection for patent holders, particularly in high-stakes sectors such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and telecommunications. The UPC’s streamlined procedures allow for rapid adjudication, often within 80 days, making it an attractive forum for right holders seeking to prevent irreparable harm in multiple jurisdictions.
Quality and predictability
The quality and predictability of the UPC’s decisions appear to be key factors in the Court’s growing appeal. A review of the decisions reveals few unexpected outcomes. In addition, the growing number of judgments handed down by the Court of Appeal plays a central role in clarifying legal standards and promoting consistent interpretation of substantive and procedural rules. This growing body of case law is gradually strengthening legal certainty and the parties’ confidence in the UPC.
Language
English has become the predominant working language before the UPC, reflecting its central role in international patent litigation. Recent statistics indicate that approximately 55% of cases have either been initiated in English or switched to it during the proceedings. This shift is not only driven by the preferences of multinational litigants, but also actively encouraged by UPC judges.
Encourage negotiations between the parties and agreements
Each month, the decisions published by the UPC show a significant number of cases that are withdrawn before reaching a judgment (at various stages of the proceedings, including after the oral proceedings have been held). This trend suggests that bringing a case before the UPC often acts as a catalyst for negotiation, encouraging the parties to engage in constructive discussions with a view to reaching a settlement.
Scope of decisions
The territorial scope of the decisions handed down by the UPC is broader than initially anticipated. While the UPC officially covers 18 EU Member States, recent decisions show that it has jurisdiction to rule on European patent infringement actions covering (1) EU Member States that are not members of the UPC and (2) non-EU Member States such as the United Kingdom. A decision by the UPC confirmed its jurisdiction to rule on infringement proceedings concerning the Spanish, Swiss and British parts of a European patent, and a very recent decision granted an injunction extending to the United Kingdom. These decisions, based on the Brussels I bis Regulation and recent case law of the CJEU, confirm the UPC’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction beyond the Member States.
The Bad
Germanocentricity
For cases where the choice of division venue is not constrained by the UPCA, the German local divisions have received 79% of all cases filed in the first two years.
To an extent this was predictable – Germany was by far the national venue of choice for patent litigation in Europe pre-UPC given the very patentee friendly nature of its procedure.
The withdrawal of the UK from the system shifted the balance further towards the German local divisions. UK based UPC representatives, denied a “home” local division, have chosen Germany as their next best option.
Given the wide choice of other local and regional divisions, this is a concerning trend. The intent of the UPC was to spread access to justice for patent proprietors across Member states with a common procedural code. It was not intended to grant the German Landgericht with supra-national powers, yet this is what the effect will be if the trend is not altered.
This situation risks a Germanification of the procedural code. Originally framed as a “best of all worlds” from various European procedural codes (including, e.g. France and the UK), the preponderance of cases filed in German divisions by German litigators doing what they have always done in Germany creates a gravitational well of early case law which will frame the procedural function of the court for good. Practice makes permanent.
Judicial Brain Drain
The UPC has not just pulled cases from the national courts, the judges have followed them. Concerns are being expressed amongst the national court judges of a brain drain. Whilst UPC practitioners would want the brightest patent judges hearing their cases, there is a concern for the future in terms of national court judicial experience in patent cases.
Why does this matter? Well, owners of national patents and European patents opted out of UPC jurisdiction also expect their cases to be handled by experienced patent judges. If national dockets and judiciaries have been denuded by UPC then it is more likely that such national cases will be heard by less experienced patent judges.
The Ugly
Case Management System
There is just no delicate way to put it. The Case Management System of the UPC was terrible.
This was not the fault of the administration but a function of circumstance. Most of the development of the CMS was done in the mid-2010s. The delay to UPC commencement created by Brexit and the subsequent German constitutional court challenge resulted in that development being mothballed for several years, only to be dusted off when the rest of the online world had moved on. By the time the system went live in 2023 both the access method and functionality of the CMS were already obsolete.
The UPC is undergoing a digital transformation with the rollout of its new case management system (CMS), which was officially launched in July 2025. The new CMS aims to address long-standing criticisms of the existing platform. The new CMS will introduce a more user-friendly interface. It will also simplify document submission, allowing users to upload files without being constrained by complex workflows or separate file numbers. This modernisation effort is an important step towards improving the accessibility and efficiency of the UPC’s operations.
Conclusion
The number of cases pending before the UPC in mid-2025 shows that this court is not only operational but is playing an increasingly central role in the enforcement of European patents. With an expanding role and a growing body of decisions contributing to an established case law, the Court is well on its way to becoming a cornerstone of the European patent system.
Dave Croston
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 October 2025
