The Unified Patent Court 2025 Comparisons

The Court of First Instance has a decentralised structure. It comprises a Central Division, which has its seat in Paris and sections in Munich and Milan, as well as various local divisions and a Regional Division, located all over the contracting member states in the EU.

This chapter will focus on and deal with the Central Division, Munich Section (referred to as the “CD Munich”). Nevertheless, it will be necessary at times to look at the overall UPC picture by referring to decisions and orders of the other sections of the Central Division in Paris and Milan, the local divisions and the Regional Division, and the Court of Appeal.

The CD Munich is located at Cincinnatistr 64, 81549 Munich, Germany (in the building of the German Federal Patent Court). The administrative office of the CD Munich can be contacted via email at contact_munich.ctl@unifiedpatentcourt.org, or via phone at +49 89 2620 899 60. Its regular opening hours are from 9am to 12pm, and by telephone arrangement between 1pm and 4pm. For the most current information regarding opening hours and public holidays/closing days (which generally are identical to public holidays and usual closing days in Munich), it is recommended to refer to the official UPC website or to contact the administrative office directly.

The information presented in the following chapter is publicly available and primarily based on decisions and orders issued by the CD Munich. It has been compiled by the authors to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Panels of the UPC Central Division are generally composed of two legally qualified judges from different contracting member states and one technically qualified judge allocated from the pool of judges, in accordance with Article 18(3) Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. Only for actions under Article 32(1)(i) UPCA (ie, actions against decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) in carrying out specific administrative tasks) does the panel consist of three legally qualified judges from different contracting member states, with no technically qualified judge.

The presiding judge of the CD Munich is Judge Ulrike Voß from Germany. She is notable for holding dual leadership roles, also presiding over the second panel of the Local Division Munich (referred to as “LD Munich”). Judge Voß brings a wealth of experience to the UPC, having previously served as presiding judge of the 4b Civil Chamber (one of the patent litigation chambers) at the District Court Düsseldorf, and later of the 15th Civil Senate (one of the then-two patent senates) at the Court of Appeals Düsseldorf. She is widely recognised for her structured and efficient conduct of hearings, as well as her ability to manage technically complex cases with clarity and precision.

Other legally qualified judges appointed to the CD Munich include Judge Mélanie Bessaud from France and Judge András Kupecz from The Netherlands. Judge Bessaud was appointed a French judge in 2005 and spent several years as a civil judge in intellectual and industrial property matters, dealing with patents, trademarks, industrial designs, models and unfair competition at the Paris Court of First Instance, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patents. Since 2020, she has been an arbitrator at the commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation, where she dealt with patents and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). Judge Kupecz holds an LLM in private law from Amsterdam University and an MSc from Utrecht University with a focus on molecular biology. Before becoming a UPC judge, he was active as a European patent litigator in private practice, dually qualified as a lawyer and a European patent attorney. That makes him one of the few UPC judges who has had their focus on the other side of the bench.

Procedural issues in the CD Munich follow the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (RoP), and no specific procedural issues have been noted in this regard.

Case opening is primarily managed through the UPC’s case management system (CMS). In exceptional circumstances – such as technical failures – documents may be lodged in hard copy at the relevant registry or sub-registry (Rule 4.2 RoP; see Amgen v Sanofi, UPC_CFI_1/2023, order delivered on 24 August 2023).

Service of process is governed by Rules 270 to 275 RoP.

The presiding judge of the CD Munich has issued an “Order for the organisation of oral hearings” (Rule 111 RoP), effective from 14 May 2024. The order sets out the procedures for conducting oral hearings at the CD Munich. Hearings are generally held in person, although remote participation via videoconference may be permitted. As a rule, hearings are open to the public unless a decision is made to exclude the public in specific cases. Video and audio recordings, as well as live streaming of the hearings, are strictly prohibited.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

The Central Division of the UPC is divided into three sections (whereby Paris serves as the seat), each tasked with handling cases related to specific fields of technology, as classified under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) International Patent Classification (IPC) sections. Following the opening of the Milan Section on 27 June 2024 – replacing the originally designated London Section – the allocation of cases within the Central Division is governed by Annex II of the UPCA, as amended by Article 1(2) of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 26 June 2023.

According to this amended allocation, the following applies.

• The Munich Section handles cases from IPC classes C (chemistry, metallurgy; without SPCs) and F (mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, weapons, blasting). IPC class C includes areas such as pure chemistry, applied chemistry, certain marginal industries, certain operations or treatments and metallurgy. IPC class F includes machines and engines in general, combustion engines, lighting, steam generation, weapons and ammunition.
• Just to mention: The Paris Seat handles cases under IPC classes B (performing operations, transporting), D (textiles, paper), E (fixed constructions), G (physics) and H (electricity), and all cases involving SPCs. The Milan Section handles cases pertaining to IPC class A (human necessities) without SPCs.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Since the commencement of operations on 1 June 2023, the Court of First Instance has received a total of 883 cases (as of 31 May 2025).

To date, 65 standalone (isolated) revocation actions have been filed with the UPC.

Of these, ten were filed with the CD Munich, 47 with the Paris Seat, and eight with the Milan Section.

In addition, the CD Munich has received one counterclaim for revocation, referred by the LD Munich in the long-running dispute between Sanofi/Regeneron and Amgen relating to PCSK9 antibodies.

According to the calendar published on the official UPC website, four substantive hearings have so far taken place (where the authors assume that this is not a comprehensive list).

• The first hearing was held on 4 June 2024 in Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC_CFI_1/2023, ACT_459505/2023, and UPC_CFI_14/2023, CC_586764/2023). The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Voß, Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz and Technically Qualified Judge Casper Struve.
• The second hearing, in the same matter, took place on 16 July 2024 and served as the announcement hearing. It was conducted by Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz. The decisions delivered marked the UPC’s first-ever revocation judgments.
• The third hearing was held on 18 September 2024 in NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023, ACT_551180/2023), before Presiding Judge Voß, Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz and Technically Qualified Judge Eric André Enderlin.
• The fourth hearing, an announcement hearing in the same case, took place on 17 October 2024, also led by Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz.

Additionally, according to the calendar, one hearing was scheduled but later cancelled. The authors do not know whether the list is comprehensive in all regards.

Furthermore, the calendar notes an online interim conference held on 13 March 2024 in Astellas v Healios et al (UPC_CFI_80/2023, ACT_465342/2023, and UPC_CFI_75/2023, ACT_464985/2023). Interested members of the public were permitted to follow via live stream from a hearing room at the premises of the CD Munich. It can be assumed that further interim conferences and video conferences have taken place, most of which were likely not open to the public.

Of the ten isolated revocation actions filed before the CD Munich, seven pertain to IPC class C and three to IPC class F.

At this stage, no discernible industry trends can be identified.

The CD Munich has demonstrated a strong commitment to following the timelines set out as guidelines by the Preparatory Committee. In recent cases, the judge-rapporteur has repeatedly emphasised the “front-loaded character” of UPC proceedings, urging parties to present their full case early and declining to consider new arguments introduced – eg, only in the reply to the defence to revocation. Clear deadlines for submissions and hearings are consistently established, and proceedings are systematically streamlined. This includes, for instance, limiting the number of auxiliary requests (see Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele, UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_18972/2025, order issued on 18 April 2025; see also 4.2 Key Procedural Issues).

The cases Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC 1/2023, ACT_459505/2023, and UPC 14/2023, CC_586764) offer an early yet compelling example of the CD Munich’s procedural efficiency. Sanofi filed an isolated revocation action before the CD Munich on 1 June 2023, while Amgen initiated an infringement action before the LD Munich on the same day. It was almost a race to file proceedings. It appears that the isolated revocation action had been filed first by not even an hour, meaning that Sanofi had not been forced to file the revocation action as a counterclaim pursuant to Article 33(4) paragraph 2 UPCA. A counterclaim for revocation was still filed in the infringement proceedings, and it was served on 24 November 2023. With the parties’ consent, the LD Munich referred the counterclaim for revocation to the CD Munich on 2 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_392/2024). Shortly thereafter, on 27 February 2024, the CD Munich ordered its joint handling of the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim. Despite the rather late joining, the revocation decisions were issued by the CD Munich on 16 July 2024 – just over a year after the isolated revocation action was filed, and about eight months after the counterclaim. This timeline was in line with the UPC’s stated goal of delivering (final) decisions approximately one year after proceedings begin and reflects strong adherence to the procedural benchmarks.

The authors do not see a trend of hearings becoming longer than anticipated. On the contrary, the CD Munich has repeatedly indicated its intention to keep hearings concise. In this regard, the judge-rapporteur has explicitly stated several times that the hearing should be completed in one day, with a second day reserved only for exceptional circumstances.

An interaction between the Central Division and local divisions/the Regional Division may occur in several scenarios, mostly in an indirect rather than a direct form. Many such interactions will occur against the legal background of Article 33 UPCA, in particular Article 33(3) UPCA.

Interaction between the Central Division and local or regional divisions under Article 33(3) UPCA is not merely theoretical but appears to have become a practical procedural feature of UPC litigation. Recent decisions by local divisions, including in Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron (LD Munich, UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_392/2024, order of 2 February 2024) and Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux (LD Düsseldorf, UPC_CFI_314/2024, UCP_CFI_572/2924, ORD_19201/2025, procedural order of 23 April 2025), demonstrate that referrals of counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division – in decided cases where a related isolated revocation action is already pending – are considered an effective means of avoiding inconsistent rulings and unnecessary duplication of work on validity.

These cases confirm that, in cases of unanimous (or equally, unopposed) referral requests, and in the absence of compelling counterarguments, local divisions are inclined to refer the case and choose to proceed with the infringement action while maintaining procedural flexibility, including the option to suspend proceedings if needed. This evolving practice reflects a pragmatic application of Article 33(3) UPCA, enabling prompt decisions and balancing judicial efficiency with party autonomy in procedural matters.

Another kind of interaction (admission of documents) will be discussed later (see 4.2 Key Procedural Plans) with regard to the case TCL Europe v Corning.

Over the past 24 months, the Central Division Munich has addressed a (not particularly broad) range of substantive legal topics, mainly addressing the classic grounds for revocation such as lack of novelty and lack of inventive step.

Assessment of Lack of Novelty

In its decision delivered on 17 October 2024 in NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023, ACT_551180/2023), the CD Munich found that for the purposes of Article 54 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), an invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The state of the art, in accordance with Article 54(2) EPC, shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application (or when applicable the priority date). It continued that the assessment of novelty within the meaning of Article 54 (1) EPC requires the determination of the whole content of the prior publication. Whether the subject matter of the claim, with all its features, is directly and unambiguously disclosed in the prior art citation is decisive (referring to Court of Appeal, order of 25 September 2024, UPC_CoA_182/2024, App 21143/2024, Mammut v Ortovox).

Assessment of Inventive Step

The assessment of inventive step is a fundamental pillar of patentability in the European patent system. Accordingly, clarity on how the UPC evaluates inventive step is of considerable relevance. While it may be expected that the UPC will align with the established approach of the EPO, which is responsible for granting European patents, the UPC retains the discretion to develop its own standards and build an independent body of case law. During the first two years of the UPC, several decisions addressing the assessment of inventive step were issued, including by the CD Munich. The Court of Appeal, so far, has provided only its first thoughts in its decision in NanoString v 10x Genomics (UPC_CoA_335/2023, App_576355/2023, 26 February 2024), without setting general guidelines. This means the UPC’s approach remains to be seen, and, for the time being, it will continue to be discussed widely.

Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen

In its decisions delivered on 16 July 2024 in Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC 1/2023, ACT 459505/2023; UPC 14/2023, C_586764/2023), the CD Munich established the potential position of the UPC on the patentability of therapeutic antibody inventions and defined its criteria for assessing inventive step.

It is interesting to note that the CD Munich chose not to follow the problem-solution approach classically employed at the EPO by not starting from the closest prior art – ie, the most promising prior art, but only from a “realistic starting point”, where there can be several realistic starting points. According to the CD Munich, a starting point is realistic if its teaching would have been of interest to a skilled person who, at the priority date of the patent at issue, was seeking to develop a similar product or method to that disclosed in the prior art, which thus has a “similar underlying problem” as the claimed invention (which appears not to be the same as the “objective technical problem” for the assessment of inventive step under the EPO approach). The CD Munich stated that, in general, a claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person was motivated – ie, had an incentive, to consider the claimed solution and would implement it as a next step in developing the prior art. It may be relevant as to whether the skilled person would have expected any particular difficulties in taking any next step(s). The CD Munich continued by saying that, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be allowed to combine prior art disclosures. A technical effect or advantage achieved by the claimed subject matter compared to the prior art may be, according to the CD Munich, an indication for inventive step. A feature that was selected in an arbitrary way out of several possibilities could not generally contribute to inventive step. The CD Munich emphasised that hindsight needs to be avoided. The question of inventive step should not be answered by searching retrospectively, with knowledge of the patented subject matter or solution, for any (combination) prior art disclosures from which that solution could be deduced.

Against this background, the CD Munich revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the person skilled in the art was motivated to develop therapeutic antibodies against PCSK9 and that he/she would have arrived at the claimed antibodies with a reasonable chance of success without an “undue burden” (in reference to the time and resources required). With this stance, the CD Munich deviated slightly from the EPO’s positions on the assessment of inventive step.

Given the still-limited number of cases before the CD Munich, it remains challenging to identify clear “leading cases”. However, Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen stands out as particularly noteworthy – not only because of its unique procedural history before the UPC, but also due to its role in a long-standing, high-stakes dispute between the parties. Amgen and Sanofi, together with Sanofi’s partner company Regeneron, have been involved in litigation over the cholesterol-lowering drugs Praluent® and Repatha® since 2014. This legal battle was initially fought before national patent courts, but on the very first day of the UPC’s operation, 1 June 2023, both parties chose to escalate the dispute to the new court system.

A search of the CMS reveals several newly initiated cases, primarily isolated revocation actions. While members of the public can identify the relevant patent numbers, they do not have access to the procedural documents. As a result, it is not possible to determine the specific patent law issues raised in those proceedings.

However, the following can be gathered on pending cases from recent decisions and orders.

One such case is the already-mentioned Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele (UPC 526/2024), concerning European Patent EP3 767 151 (cabinet levelling apparatus). The isolated revocation action was initiated following UPC provisional measures proceedings between the parties at the LD Munich, which were decided in favour of the claimant (the defendant in those proceedings) on the basis of a weighing of interests in its favour (see LD Munich, UPC_CFI_443/2024, ACT_43563/2024, order of 25 November 2024). The panel of the LD Munich (also with Presiding Judge Voß as presiding judge) had expressed the opinion that (provisionally, in summary proceedings – and where the CD Munich stressed that it had of course arrived at its own opinion independently) an infringement of the patent was more likely than not, but that the validity of the patent was doubtful (see UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, order issued on 18 April 2025).

In the isolated revocation action, the claimant argues that the subject matter of all claims is not patentable – specifically, that it lacks novelty and/or inventive step. Furthermore, it is alleged that the patent does not disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for a person skilled in the art to carry it out, and that the subject matter extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations (comprising a number of proceedings in different fora), and the CD Munich has agreed to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP, pending the outcome of those negotiations (UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_24550/2025, order issued on 22 May 2025).

Another pending case is TCL Europe v Corning, which involves both an isolated revocation action (UPC 337/2025) and an infringement action, including a counterclaim for revocation, and is currently before the LD Munich (UPC_CFI_819/2024). The case concerns EP 3 296 274 (related to the fining of boro-alumino silicate glasses). The isolated revocation action was filed on 22 April 2025, followed by the counterclaim for revocation on 15 May 2025. In this matter, the claimant appears to argue that the patent is not valid – specifically alleging lack of inventive step and the presence of added matter. The deadline for filing the defence to revocation has been extended, reportedly until 7 July 2025. It remains to be seen whether the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation will be consolidated at a later stage (for previous similar cases, please see 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions).

Technically qualified judges play a vital role within the UPC system by ensuring that complex scientific and technical aspects of cases are accurately understood and appropriately evaluated. Their significance is underscored by their growing numbers and a number of recent new appointments. In total, there are currently around 75 technically qualified judges, most of them in the fields of physics and mechanical engineering.

In the Central Division, the panel is typically composed of two legally qualified judges and one technically qualified judge allocated from the pool of judges in accordance with Article 18(3) UPCA, with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. This composition fosters a high level of interdisciplinary collaboration and ensures that legal reasoning is firmly anchored in a solid understanding of the underlying technical subject matter.

To the authors’ knowledge, there is nothing specific to report on the interaction with parties’ representatives and experts (if any). There are no general patterns that can be identified.

At the CD Munich, there is no discernible tendency for substantive legal decisions to be shaped by German or other national court practices. Instead, the CD Munich is consciously developing its own legal standards, clearly aiming to establish a unified body of European patent jurisprudence that stands independent of any single national tradition. This approach has also been publicly confirmed by Judge Voß.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

It can be said that a typical hearing structure has begun to emerge, though practice is still developing. In most cases, hearings follow a streamlined and disciplined format, reflecting the UPC’s overarching aim of efficiency, its front-loaded character and the fact that an interim conference usually will have taken place already.

At the outset of the hearing, the presiding judge or the panel will provide introductory remarks that outline the main issues. In most cases, the remarks will include the panel’s preliminary views and highlight specific issues that the panel considers particularly relevant. After these remarks, the parties are invited to respond directly to those issues. The panel expects oral arguments to be focused and responsive to the issues raised in the introduction, rather than a repetition of written submissions. If a party wishes to address an issue not mentioned in the introduction, they are allowed to do so, but the focus usually remains on issues identified by the panel. This approach appears similar to the approach known from German national proceedings.

Hearings generally align with time blocks communicated in advance, typically half-day or full-day sessions, and – so far – they tend to adhere closely to the anticipated duration.

Over the past 24 months, the Central Division Munich has addressed a range of procedural issues. A selection of particularly notable examples is outlined in the following.

Admission of Late-Filed Material, Extension of Deadline (TCL Europe v Corning)

In a recent procedural order issued on 13 June 2025 (UPC 337/2025, ACT_17987/2025, ORD_25882/2025), the CD Munich ruled on two contested procedural applications in the isolated revocation action TCL Europe SAS v Corning Inc.

TCL, as claimant in the isolated revocation action, sought to introduce two new added-matter arguments and a consulting report from the Swedish Patent Office into the action, arguing the material became available only after the initial filing. Corning challenged this on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that the proper route for such amendments would have been under Rule 263 RoP, and that the delay lacked sufficient justification.

Concurrently, Corning filed an application seeking a four-week extension to file its defence to revocation and any potential application to amend the patent. The rationale was to accommodate the new arguments (if admitted) and co-ordinate its procedural strategy across both the revocation and the parallel infringement proceedings. TCL opposed the extension. Following a partial agreement between the parties, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) admitted the late-filed material and granted a partial extension of the deadline for filing the defence to revocation. The CD Munich emphasised that the court generally respects party agreements on procedural matters unless exceptional concerns arise. Notably, the court did not engage in a detailed Rule 263 RoP analysis, implicitly endorsing the parties’ pragmatic approach to incorporating the new material and adjusting timelines.

Security for Legal Costs, Release of Security (NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd v President and Fellows of Harvard College)

In its order of 17 December 2024 (UPC 252/2023, ACT_551180/2023, ORD_56957/2024), the CD Munich ruled that it has the power to release a security for legal costs imposed under Rule 158 RoP by applying Rule 352.2 RoP, even though Rule 158 RoP does not explicitly provide for such a release. In this case, NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd requested the release of a security deposit, arguing that its financial situation had materially changed due to a corporate restructuring and acquisition by Bruker Corporation, a financially sound entity.

The CD Munich rejected the request. It emphasised that the relevant financial position is that of the party itself – not its parent company or corporate group, whereby NanoString failed to provide evidence of its own independent financial capacity. The CD Munich also noted that the original cost risk remains until a decision becomes final and non-appealable, which had not occurred.

The decision appears to reinforce a strict interpretation of financial independence in cost security matters under the UPC framework. It clarified that while Rule 352.2 RoP can be used to release securities imposed under Rule 158 RoP, the burden lies on the applicant to prove that the underlying risk has ceased. The CD Munich also resisted factoring in the procedural stage of the case (eg, a favourable first-instance decision) when the potential for appeal remains.

Reasonable Number of Auxiliary Requests (Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele)

In its order issued on 18 April 2025 (UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_18972/2025), the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) addressed the question of what constitutes a “reasonable” number of auxiliary requests filed by a defendant in an isolated revocation action. The legal context is provided by Rule 50(2) RoP in conjunction with Rules 30(1) and 30(2) RoP, which require that conditional proposals to amend a patent must be reasonable in number, considering the circumstances of the case.

The court found that determining what qualifies as a reasonable number of auxiliary requests depends on several factors, including the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents, the nature and number of validity challenges, and the manner in which the auxiliary requests are presented and structured. According to the court, the existence of parallel proceedings concerning the patent or other patents from the same family is, for example, not a relevant factor in this assessment.

While the RoP do not specify a sanction for submitting an excessive number of auxiliary requests, the CD Munich stated that it would be disproportionate and too far-reaching to reject the request to amend outright. Instead, it announced its intention to address the auxiliary requests – should they become relevant – in the order submitted, up to a point where the number is still considered reasonable. It further indicated that a total of up to ten auxiliary requests would, in all likelihood, still be regarded as reasonable. In light of these considerations, and with a view to streamlining the proceedings and facilitating preparations for the oral hearing, the defendant was invited to limit and/or re-order its proposed amendments. This should ensure that the fall-back positions the defendant considers most relevant receive appropriate consideration by the court.

Just to mention: In the revocation decision Meril v Edwards Lifesciences (UPC_CFI_255/2023, UPC_CFI_15/2023, decision issued on 19 July 2024), the CD Paris had held that 84 auxiliary requests based on nine conditional amendments would be an extremely high number, potentially hindering the efficiency of the UPC proceedings, but nevertheless considered this number of 84 auxiliary requests not “unreasonable”, considering the “extreme complexity of the case”, the “importance of the patent” and the “interrelationship with other proceedings”. It appears that the two sections of the Central Division applied at least slightly different criteria.

Conclusion of Actions, in Particular By Way of Settlement (Astellas Institute v Healios et al)

In its order issued on 23 July 2024 (UPC 75/2023 and UPC 80/2023) the CD Munich found that parties may at any time conclude their action by way of settlement, which “shall” be confirmed by a decision of the court, Article 79 UPCA. Rule 365 RoP clarifies that the court shall confirm the settlement only if requested by the parties. This is in line with the principle of party disposition, Articles 76 (1) and 43 UPCA. Thus, the parties may at any time conclude their action by way of settlement, also without seeking a confirmatory court decision according to Rule 365.1 RoP. There are alternative options to conclude an action: The parties may agree that the plaintiff shall apply to withdraw the action (with the consent of the defendant) in accordance with Rule 265 RoP – or, as the parties did in this case, the parties can request unanimously that the court disposes of the action as it has become devoid of purpose, and there is no longer any need to adjudicate thereon in accordance with Rule 360 RoP.

On a related topic, the CD Munich ruled that Rule 370.9 RoP (reimbursement of 20% of the court fees) is not limited to concluding an action by way of settlement within the meaning of Rule 365 RoP, in particular since the parties shall be encouraged to settle an action in an early stage of the proceedings.

Following the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision in Ocado/Autostore (UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, order of 10 April 2024) regarding the appropriate standard to be applied when considering requests by third parties for access to written pleadings and evidence, the CD Munich applied a generally permissive regime for access to pleading and evidence. The most recent orders are summarised in the following.

Requests Made Under Rule 262.1(b) RoP

The CD Munich dealt with several requests made under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, which allows public access to court documents upon a reasoned request. For example, in the most recent case of 3 January 2025, Berggren Oy, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) granted a request to access the written pleadings and evidence from the then-concluded revocation action in NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College. The CD Munich noted the case was concluded and highlighted the public’s interest in transparency, in part to increase trust in the court. With no objections or confidentiality concerns, it granted access to the documents, subject to redaction of personal data under EU data protection rules.

Similar orders were rendered on 22 October 2024 in three Dehns cases requesting access to the written pleadings and evidence of the Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen case. In these orders, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) additionally held that Rule 262.1(b) RoP does not permit access to documents that are not written pleadings or evidence. The CD Munich based its interpretation on the rule’s wording and its purpose – to ensure transparency only regarding the substantive elements of a case. Since the claimant failed to show a legitimate interest in other documents, despite being invited to do so, the court deemed part of the request inadmissible and unfounded.

Request Made Under Rule 262.3 RoP

In its order of 4 November 2024 in Mathys & Squire, the CD Munich granted access to previously redacted pleadings in Astellas v Healios. Astellas had claimed confidentiality under Rule 262.2 RoP, but failed to substantiate its position when challenged under Rule 262.3 RoP. The court, referring to the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision Ocado/Autostore, found that Mathys & Squire’s interest in access outweighed any remaining confidentiality concerns.

At present, the authors are not aware of any specific procedural issues currently pending before the Central Division in Munich.

As already outlined with regard to substantive legal decisions, there is no discernible tendency for procedural decisions to be shaped by German or other national court practices. Rather, the CD Munich is deliberately forging its own legal standards, with the clear objective of establishing a unified European patent jurisprudence independent of any single national tradition.

Even though the UPC is still in its early stages, several examples have already emerged where the Court of Appeal (referred to in this section as the CoA) has addressed important procedural issues that resolved previous differences, or at least uncertainties. A few examples follow.

One example refers to the fundamental question on the interaction between the UPC and national patent proceedings during the transitional period. In cases where national proceedings are already pending, the UPC must decide whether it has jurisdiction and whether it should stay the proceedings. The key issue is the interpretation and applicability of Articles 29–32 and Article 71c (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast Reg), which provide the rules for the courts of the EU member states on how to co-ordinate civil proceedings that are identical, or related to each other, and are pending simultaneously in different member states. In its 17 September 2024 order in Mala v Nokia (UPC_CoA_227/2024, APL_26889/2024), the CoA found that the UPC must consider national proceedings that were already pending before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. It provided some clarity on conflicting views (CD Paris in Mala v Nokia compared to LD Paris in Abbott v Dexcom), but naturally did not define in general when the UPC would decline jurisdiction or stay proceedings due to a parallel national revocation action.

Another example is the already-mentioned decision Ocado v Autostore of 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023) regarding the appropriate standard to be applied when considering requests by third parties for access to written pleadings and evidence, pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

Generally, the value of the matter under dispute is relevant for the calculation of the court fees as well as the calculation of the recoverable lawyers’ and patent attorneys’ fees.

So far, only isolated revocation actions have been filed before the CD Munich. Since the court fee for such actions is fixed at EUR20,000, regardless of the value in dispute, claimants would not need to specify a case value for fee purposes. However, parties still assess the value of the proceedings for the determination of the ceiling of recoverable costs.

For example, in Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele (UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_18972/2025, order issued on 18 April 2025), the claimant assessed the value at EUR500,000. The valuation remained uncontested. In accordance with the table of ceilings for reimbursable costs (varying depending on the value) in dispute published by the Administrative Committee on 24 April 2023 (D-AC/10/24042023_D), the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) stated that the ceiling corresponding to a value of EUR500,000 would be set at EUR56,000. It added that parties may submit, in advance of the decision at the oral hearing by way of application of Rule 9 RoP, a preliminary estimate of the legal costs that they will seek to recover. Moreover, the parties were, notwithstanding the aforesaid, encouraged to find agreement on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate and/or on how to allocate costs depending on the outcome of the case. The court would, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties in this respect. A final decision, if necessary, would be taken after hearing the parties at the oral hearing.

In the Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen case, it can be taken from the order of 27 February 2024 combining the isolated revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation that, at the hearing, the judge-rapporteur informed the parties that he intended to decide the value of the proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs. It appears that the parties were in agreement regarding the value of the proceedings being set at EUR100,000,000 for each action. The court did not have any objections, and the value of the proceedings was set accordingly.

Court fees at the UPC differ significantly from those in German national courts, both in structure and in absolute amounts. Generally, the court fees of German national courts are considerably higher than the court fees of the UPC.

Cost awards have been made by the CD Munich.

In Sanofi/Regeneron v Amgen (UPC 1/2023, ACT459505, and UPC 14/2023, CC_586764/2023, decisions delivered on 16 July 2024), the CD Munich found that the defendant, as the unsuccessful party, shall bear the legal costs incurred by the claimants to an amount of EUR1.375 million. From what can be seen, the parties had agreed prior to the oral hearing, as clarified at that hearing, that they deem an amount of EUR1.375 million to be reasonable and proportionate (per action for the revocation action and the counterclaim). The court understood that the parties request a (final) decision on the costs to be awarded. Given the value of this case (set at EUR100 million; see the order to combine cases dated 27 February 2024), the corresponding ceiling for recoverable representation costs (up to EUR2 million; see AC Decision on the Scale of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs dated 23 April 2023, D - AC/10/24042023_E) and the explanations of the parties during the oral hearing, the CD Munich had no reason to doubt that the number agreed between the parties was indeed reasonable and proportionate. It decided accordingly.

In NanoString Technologies Europe v President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC_CFI_252/2023, ACT_551180/2023, decision delivered on 17 October 2024), the CD Munich ruled that, in accordance with Article 69 UPCA and Rule 118.5 RoP, the defendant, as the unsuccessful party, and with the patent being revoked entirely, has to bear the legal costs of the claimant.

The authors are not aware of any damages awards being made so far.

It is rather difficult to identify advantages of seizing the CD Munich as, at least for revocation actions, claimants do not have a choice. Only in exceptional cases is there a choice between the CD Munich and local divisions.

Having said that, an advantage – or rather, a positive aspect, as there is no real comparison – is that, at the outset of the hearing, the presiding judge or the panel will provide introductory remarks that outline the main issues. As mentioned in the foregoing, those remarks will include the panel’s preliminary views and highlight specific issues that the panel considers particularly relevant. This appears to be useful in conducting and presiding over oral proceedings. Further, the CD Munich appears to be willing to facilitate a potential settlement of a dispute between the parties. In one case that the authors know of, the CD Munich offered to keep a date and time already scheduled for the interim conference for an informal discussion with the parties, to explore whether a settlement is within reach.

In the authors’ opinion, the most significant trends are likely to be the following.

Increased Caseload and UPC Maturity

The UPC is likely to see a steady rise in litigation activity as more patentees and litigants gain confidence in the system. As the court delivers more judgments, a growing body of case law will bring greater predictability and legal certainty. The existence of case law will encourage wider participation, especially from parties that initially opted out and were reluctant. With this trend, a shift from national litigation to UPC actions may appear.

SEP and FRAND Cases at the UPC

The UPC is expected to become a major forum for standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing disputes. With its pan-European reach, the UPC offers a powerful tool for SEP holders to enforce licensing programmes across multiple markets simultaneously.

Litigation Funding and NPE Activity

There will likely be growth in litigation funding and activity by non-practicing entities (NPEs), who may see the UPC as a cost-effective way to assert high-value patents across a wide territory. The streamlined process and high potential returns make the UPC attractive for monetisation strategies.

Legal Harmonisation and Tension with National Systems

The UPC will contribute to the harmonisation of patent enforcement in Europe but also create tensions with national legal systems, especially in countries outside the UPC. Courts, policymakers, businesses and their legal advisors will need to navigate the evolving dual system carefully.

.

The introduction of the UPC has led to a significant decline in the number of new patent lawsuits filed before German national courts. In 2023 alone, the German courts specialising in patents recorded a 23.6% drop in new cases compared to the previous year, with only 601 new lawsuits filed according to data published by JUVE. This downward trend continued into 2024. At the same time, key courts have scaled back their capacity – most notably, the Court of Appeals Düsseldorf, which dissolved one of its patent senates.

However, a more nuanced perspective is necessary. In particular, the District Court Munich has maintained its role as a major forum for patent litigation and continues to attract prominent cases, such as (NPE) Tulip v Sunwoda, concerning car battery technology, and Dish v Aylo, involving adaptive video streaming.

Moreover, claimants may still favour German courts for a variety of reasons and strategic considerations. These include, for example, their speed – particularly in preliminary injunction proceedings – as well as their extensive and predictable case law, their reputation for being patentee-friendly and their reluctance to apply proportionality assessments to injunctive relief as strictly as the UPC. Additionally, it appears that many companies, especially in sectors such as pharma and life sciences, remain cautious in their approach to the UPC.

Overall, the authors believe that national patent litigation in Germany will continue to play an important and enduring role.

The UPC has enjoyed a very successful start since its launch in June 2023, quickly establishing itself as a central institution in the European patent litigation landscape. The UPC has handled a rapidly growing number of cases, with hundreds filed in its first year, and has been widely recognised for its efficient procedures, high-quality decisions, and the dedication of its judges and staff. This strong beginning has contributed to increased confidence among many patent holders and litigants, and the UPC is already playing a key role in harmonising patent enforcement across the contracting member states and beyond (and not only due to its “long-arm jurisdiction”). Nevertheless, the authors take the liberty of making some suggestions for improvements to the UPC, as follows.

Increase in Legal Certainty: Creating Even More Trust in the UPC

Legal certainty is a core objective of the UPC, aiming to provide predictable, consistent outcomes for patent litigation across the contracting member states (and beyond). Actions that could help increase legal certainty in the authors’ view include the following.

• Harmonisation with EPO case law: The UPC appears to be increasingly aligning its approach, particularly regarding inventive step and added matter, with the EPO case law. The adoption of the EPO’s “problem-solution approach” for assessing inventive step is, from what the authors see, currently considered as a key measure to enhance legal certainty, as this method is objective and well-established among practitioners.
• Ongoing case law development: As the UPC “matures”, its Court of Appeal will play a crucial role in clarifying and unifying legal standards, further increasing predictability for future cases. To enable the Court of Appeal to render decisions, litigants must first bring cases to the UPC, and then up to the Court of Appeal (ie, in particular, to not settle “too early”).

Enhance Searchability and Accessibility to UPC Decisions and Orders

The searchability and accessibility of decisions and orders on the UPC’s website could be improved. Current filtering is limited, and searching by means of keywords often does not return any useful results. Therefore, it is difficult for users to find the relevant case law, especially as the caseload grows. Implementing more robust and user-friendly search functions would facilitate better access and, following from that, transparency and understanding. In this context, reducing delays in publishing decisions and orders to ensure timely access to information would also be welcome.

Address CMS Issues

The current CMS has been widely regarded as difficult to use and encountered various technical issues. In response, the UPC promptly initiated the development of a new CMS and started an intensive testing phase – in terms of functionalities, structure and the quality of data migration.

On 11 June 2025, the UPC announced that the new CMS will be rolled out in two phases to ensure a smooth and stable transition while minimising potential risks. The first phase, starting in July 2025, is supposed to focus on opt-out functionalities and the registration of representatives. This limited launch is intended to give users the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the new system. The second phase will follow in September 2025, when the full CMS will go live for all users. According to available information, the UPC also plans to launch a dedicated webpage providing comprehensive support materials, such as FAQs, user guides and tutorials, to assist users throughout the transition. This is very welcome news, as the authors believe it is crucial to ensure that the new CMS is reliable, intuitive, user-friendly and capable of handling increasing case volumes without technical disruptions.