- Rapid Growth and Significant Impact: Since its start two years ago, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has rapidly grown in case volume and significantly impacted the European and global patent landscapes by improving legal certainty and efficiency.
- Varied Engagement Across Industries and Countries: The UPC seen varied levels of engagement across different industries and countries, with notable activity in the electrical sector and significant differences in litigation strategies among German, Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese parties.
- Expansion of Judicial Capacity: Due to the inacreasing caseload, the UPC has expanded its judicial capacity substantially and now operates with 123 judges to maintain procedural efficiency and meet the growing demands for timely rulings.
Having opened its doors just over two years ago, the Unified Patent Court has already reshaped the European and global patent landscapes, attracting an impressive and fast-growing number of cases, including a slew of strategically crucial actions, and helping to enhance legal certainty and efficiency across its member states. However, the court has proved more popular with some types of companies than with others and some branches of the UPC have been inundated while others have been underutilised.
Here are the key trends from the court's first two years.
A Popular Court
After surpassing expectations in its first year, the UPC continued its strong development over its second year. Between the start of operations on 1 June 2023 and the end of May 2025, the Court of First Instance received a total of 883 cases. Among these were 320 infringement actions with 304 counterclaims for revocation.
Notably, these 304 counterclaims came from 174 individual infringement actions, indicating that 146 infringement cases proceeded without a counterclaim.
A clear trend has emerged since the UPC began its work: standalone revocation actions remain the exception, with only 65 such cases filed over the two-year period.
The UPC has also gained broad acceptance across all industries, as evidenced by the wide variety of cases filed. Nevertheless, a concentration of activity can be observed in certain technical fields. Since the beginning of its operations, more cases have related to the electrical sector than any other technology area, with 209 cases falling under the corresponding IPC Class H (Electricity). This is followed by cases concerning daily needs, which account for 128 cases in IPC Class A, and physics, with 86 cases in IPC Class G. Operations and transport follow with 70 cases in IPC Class B, while chemistry and metallurgy have been involved in 36 cases under IPC Class C.
In contrast, other sectors have seen comparatively lower levels of litigation. Fixed constructions, categorised under IPC Class E, have been the subject of 24 cases. Mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, weapons, and blasting, grouped in IPC Class F, have accounted for just 13 cases. The field of textiles and paper, represented by IPC Class D, has seen the least activity, with only 5 cases filed.
The growth in case volume has been remarkable. By the end of its first year of operation (end of May 2024), the Court of First Instance had received 373 cases. Not even one year later, that number has more than doubled, reaching 883 cases by the end of May 2025.
This acceleration is particularly evident in 2025. While the average monthly case intake between June and December 2023 was around 16 cases, the pace has significantly increased. As of 1 January 2025, the UPC had recorded 635 cases. Just five months later (end of May), that number rose to 883, indicating an average of a little under 50 new cases per month in early 2025.
Number of Judges Increasing
At the time of its launch, the UPC appointed a total of 85 judges, including 34 legally qualified and 51 technically qualified judges. With the growing number of cases, the need for additional judicial capacity has become evident.
As of 1 June 2025, the UPC has expanded to 123 judges. The number of technically qualified judges has increased to 79, while the number of legally qualified judges has risen to 44. This represents a total increase of 38 judges within two years, corresponding to a growth of approximately 44.71%.
Different Litigation Strategies per Country
Another noteworthy development in 2024, shown in the annual report, is the distribution of infringement and revocation cases based on the nationality of the parties involved.
US parties show a nearly balanced pattern, having filed 44 infringement actions and having responded to infringement claims with 42 counterclaims for revocation. In contrast, German and Dutch claimants are naturally targeted more often "at home", that is, in their home jurisdictions. For instance, German parties filed only 34 infringement actions but responded with 120 counterclaims for revocation. Similarly, parties from the Netherlands filed just six infringement actions while defending with 34 revocation counterclaims.
The case of Japanese parties particularly stands out. As claimants, they filed only infringement actions – 11 – whereas as defendants, they faced 91 counterclaims for revocation. This suggests an assertive litigation strategy that often provokes defensive responses.
Chinese parties on the other hand show a similar pattern to the German and Dutch approach. As claimants, they predominantly file counterclaims for revocation, while as defendants, they are frequently targeted by infringement actions.
These statistics illustrate that while the UPC is widely accepted across jurisdictions, there are notable differences in litigation behavior between participants of different countries.
In summary, German, Dutch, and Chinese parties are more often on the defensive, frequently filing counterclaims for revocation, whereas Japanese parties tend to initiate infringement actions and face revocation counterclaims in response.
Busy German Divisions
Since the start of operations, the German divisions of the UPC have been particularly busy. The Munich Local Division (LD) has handled the largest number of cases, accounting for 27.2% of all filings, making it the busiest of all divisions. It is followed by the Düsseldorf LD, which has handled 16.3% of the cases, Mannheim with 9.5% and Hamburg with 7.5%.
While the German Local Divisions remain the most active within the UPC system, other Local Divisions have begun to see a noticeable increase in case numbers following a relatively slow start: The Hague, with 5.1% of all cases, as well as Paris and Milan, each with 4.8%, are showing steady growth and are beginning to close the gap to their German counterparts.
The Central Division in Paris has seen a notable increase in activity and now ranks third in terms of overall case distribution, but leading the number of revocation actions, with 47 filed in comparison to Munich CD (10) and Milan CD (8), by a large margin.
This dominance is largely due to the Paris CD jurisdiction over IPC classes B, D, E, G, and H. Among these, IPC Class H (Electricity) is particularly significant, as it accounts for the highest number of cases across all technical fields, as shown before.
In contrast, the Munich CD, which handles cases in IPC Classes C (Chemistry and Metallurgy) and F (Mechanical Engineering and related fields), sees fewer cases overall due to the relatively low volume of litigation in these areas. Interestingly, the Milan CD, despite being responsible solely for IPC Class A (Daily Needs), has handled more cases than the Munich CD. This is because Class A represents the second most active technical field in terms of case numbers.
Speaking of busy divisions, the UPC's Court of Appeal has also seen substantial activity. A total of 203 cases were filed in which one of the parties appealed a first-instance decision. In addition to these, 76 further cases were brought before the Court of Appeal for discretionary review, requests for suspensive effect, or applications for expedited appeal proceedings. Among these, there were four applications for rehearing under Rule 245 of the Rules of Procedure.
Language of the Proceedings
Regarding the language of the proceedings, English and German dominate across all types of proceedings. English is used in approximately 55% of proceedings, while German accounts for around 38%. Other languages are used only rarely.
This marks a notable shift compared to 21 December 2023, when English was used in only 40% of cases and German in 49%, indicating a clear trend toward the increasing use of English before the UPC. This is partly because filing in English helps a case to proceed as quickly as intended because it widens the pool of available judges for the panel appointed for a case. In addition, filing in English is possible in any Division.
According to Article 49 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), the available languages depend on the member state in which the division is located. In Germany, for example, both German and English are designated as official languages for UPC proceedings before local divisions. The claimant can choose the initial language of the proceedings, but the defendant has the right to request a change to the language of the patent. In such cases, all relevant circumstances are considered, and if the balancing of interests is equal, the defendant's position is the decisive factor.
Development of Unitary Patents
Another important development is the growing number of European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patent). In 2025, the uptake rate within the European Union has reached 38.9%, while the global uptake rate stands at 27.7%. This means that more than one in four patents granted by the European Patent Office is now being converted into a Unitary Patent. Compared to 2023, when the uptake rate in the EU was 26.3% and the global rate was 17.5%, this marks a significant increase in the popularity of the Unitary Patent system. The data shows that applicants from the European Union favour to choose the Unitary Patent.
The largest share of proprietors originates from Germany, accounting for 18.2%, but with the United States following closely at 16.4%. Much like the UPC itself, the Unitary Patent has found acceptance across all sectors and is used not only by large enterprises but also by small and medium-sized entities. In Europe, 32% of all proprietors are SMEs, 61.7% are large companies, and 6.3% are universities or public research organisations.
Speedy Proceedings
One of the principles of the UPC, as outlined in the preamble of the UPCA, is the swift handling of cases. According to point 7 of the preamble, the final oral hearing on infringement and validity in the first instance should normally take place within one year.
Furthermore, Rule 118 of the Rules of Procedure states that the decision on the merits should be issued within six weeks of the oral hearing. On average, the time required to close an infringement case is currently 405.42 days, according to the status annual report 2024, which aligns well with the target of approximately 13.5 months.
This suggests that the UPC is living up to its promise of being a fast and efficient judicial body.
SEP and FRAND: First Direction Chosen by the UPC
Following the first decision on standard essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licensing by the Mannheim LD in the case of OPPO v Panasonic the Munich LD has now issued a ruling in another SEP-related matter on 18 December 2024: Huawei v Netgear. In its reasoning, the Munich division largely aligned itself with the approach taken by the Mannheim LD.
The Munich LD followed the approach of the European Commission – expressed in an amicus curiae letter submitted in German national proceedings – to the extent that the implementer's initial declaration of willingness to take a licence constitutes the starting point of the license negotiations. However, it emphasized that such a declaration must be made seriously. According to the court, assessing the seriousness of this willingness cannot be based solely on the wording of the declaration itself. Instead, the court endorsed the view expressed by the Mannheim LD, which requires an overall view of the respective behavior.
In this context, the subsequent behavior of the parties is also relevant. It must be evaluated considering whether it adequately reflects the fundamental objective of the negotiation framework established by the Court of Justice of the European Union - namely, to facilitate the timely conclusion of a FRAND licence agreement through targeted, good-faith negotiations conducted primarily on a private and autonomous basis.
The court disagreed with the European Commission that the first licence offer of the patent holder must be FRAND. Instead, the court – following the Mannheim LD and German national courts (German Federal Court of Justice and Munich Higher Regional Court) – expressed the view that the last offer of the patent holder must be reviewed to determine whether it is FRAND. However, the prerequisite for examining the FRAND conformity of the licence offer of the patent holder is that the implementer made a counteroffer and – in case the counteroffer was rejected – provided security and rendered accounts to the patent holder. According to the court, the amount of security must be at least equal to the counteroffer. Whether the security must also be based on the (higher) offer of the patent holder did not have to be decided by the court, since no security had been provided at all by the defendant.
In summary, the Munich LD follows the reasoning of the Mannheim LD and aligns with the broader principles of German case law. However, this approach does not fully correspond to the position taken by the European Commission.
Outlook
Two years after its establishment, the UPC has firmly positioned itself as a central institution in the European patent landscape. With a steadily growing caseload, while maintaining procedural efficiency the UPC has demonstrated its capacity to meet the high expectations towards it. Due to the UPC's ability to deliver timely and quality decisions, it has gained quickly broad acceptance across industries and jurisdictions with trust among both multinational corporations and small and medium-sized enterprises. Today, the UPC is successful integrated into the European legal framework.
Looking ahead, the UPC is well positioned to continue shaping a more unified litigation environment in Europe. With the potential accession of additional member states, further procedural refinements, and the continued development of case law, the UPC is likely to play an increasingly important role in fostering innovation and legal certainty across the European Union and beyond.
Originally published by Intellectual Asset Management
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
