The Local Division of Mannheim is located at Schubertstraße 11, 68165 Mannheim. The administrative office can be contacted via e-mail (contact_mannheim.loc@unifiedpatentcourt.org) or phone (+49 621 292 4697/4235/4696).

The opening hours are 9am to 6.30pm from Monday to Friday, and the public holidays are as follows:

• New Year’s Day (Neujahr) – January 1st;
• Good Friday (Karfreitag) – in March or April;
• Easter Monday (Ostermontag) – in March or April;
• Labour Day (Tag der Arbeit) – May 1st;
• Ascension Day (Christi Himmelfahrt) – 39 days after Easter;
• Whit Monday (Pfingstmontag) – seven weeks after Easter;
• Corpus Christi (Fronleichnam) – 60 days after Easter;
• Day of German Unity (Tag der Deutschen Einheit) – October 3rd;
• All Saints’ Day (Allerheiligen) – November 1st;
• Christmas Day (Weihnachtstag) – December 25th; and
• Boxing Day (Weihnachtstag) – December 26th.

The judges assigned to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) division in this jurisdiction are as follows.

• Dr Peter Tochtermann, Dirk Böttcher and Dr Holger Kircher are currently serving as permanent judges in the Mannheim Local Division;
• Dr Peter Tochtermann is presiding judge at the Local Division of Mannheim and former judge at the Regional Court of Mannheim. He was also elected to the presidium of the UPC;
• Dirk Böttcher is judge at the Local Division of Mannheim and former presiding judge at the Regional Court of Mannheim, 14th Civil Chamber (patent and antitrust chamber), and has been a member of the judiciary since 2012 – he moved to the UPC full time in February of 2025;
• Dr Holger Kircher is judge at the Local Division of Mannheim and presiding judge at the Regional Court of Mannheim, 2nd Civil Chamber (trade mark, knowhow, copyright, unfair competition law, etc), and has been a member of the judiciary since 1992.

The Mannheim Local Division has one chamber. Judge Tochtermann sits with either Judge Böttcher or Judge Kircher. It is anticipated that, in future, most cases before the Mannheim Local Division will be heard by a panel comprising Judge Tochtermann, Judge Böttcher and a foreign judge. Thanks to their many years of experience in patent infringement proceedings at the Regional Court of Mannheim, all three judges are highly qualified to hear UPC cases. The trust placed in them because of their work at the Regional Court of Mannheim remains unchanged in UPC cases. They have played a significant role in establishing Mannheim’s reputation as a leading court for patent matters.

The expertise of the technically qualified judges (TQJs) at the Local Division of Mannheim makes them exceptionally well-suited for handling complex technical matters. Their profound understanding of technical issues ensures that cases are assessed with a high level of competence and precision. The firm has consistently had positive experiences with the legally and technically qualified judges at the Local Division of Mannheim, and this positive experience reinforces the authors’ confidence in the UPC’s ability to handle infringement and nullity proceedings together effectively.

To date, the authors have not experienced any significant procedural difficulties before the Local Division Mannheim. The only issues encountered are those related to the case management system (CMS), which are common across various locations. These CMS-related challenges are well-documented and are being addressed through ongoing maintenance and resolution efforts. The authors remain confident that these technical issues will continue to be managed effectively, ensuring smooth proceedings in the future.

Since the inception of the UPC, the Local Division Mannheim has distinguished itself through particularly proactive and effective case management. Especially during the early phase of the Court’s operation, the Mannheim division has demonstrated a strong commitment to procedural efficiency and practical co-ordination.

Judges in Mannheim have taken an active role in guiding proceedings, ensuring that cases move forward in a focused and structured manner. This includes the timely issuance of procedural orders, the clear setting of deadlines and constructive interaction with the parties during interim conferences. As a result, parties have experienced a litigation environment that is both predictable and purpose-driven.

In addition, the Mannheim Local Division had to decide on the first fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) counterclaim. In the case of Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the Mannheim Local Division rendered its first substantive decision on a FRAND defence and counterclaim on 22 November 2024. Panasonic accused OPPO of infringing its standard-essential patent (SEP) EP 2 568 724, which pertains to 4G communication technology. In response, OPPO filed a counterclaim seeking a determination that Panasonic’s SEP was subject to FRAND obligations, an order compelling Panasonic to submit a specific FRAND licence offer or, alternatively, a declaratory judgment confirming OPPO’s right to a FRAND licence.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

The case load overview of the UPC, covering the period from its commencement on 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2025, provides insight into the activities of the Local Division Mannheim. During this timeframe, the Mannheim Division has been involved in 45 infringement actions, which are proceedings initiated to address alleged patent violations. Additionally, there have been 48 counterclaims for revocation, where defendants challenge the validity of the patent in question.

Furthermore, the Division has processed two applications for interim measures, and there has also been one application for preserving evidence, aimed at securing crucial information that might otherwise be lost or destroyed. Lastly, the Division has dealt with eight applications for a cost decision, which involve determining the allocation of legal costs between parties, mostly because the actions were withdrawn due to settlement of the parties.

Collectively, these cases account for 9.5% of the total proceedings handled by the UPC, highlighting the significant role played by the Local Division Mannheim within the broader framework of the UPC.

At the Local Division Mannheim, there have been ten public oral hearings to date, each concerning an infringement action. Additionally, one oral hearing was held in relation to an application for provisional measures.

Based on the proceedings in which decisions or orders have been issued by the Local Division Mannheim, the patents involved are categorised under various International Patent Classification (IPC) classes. Specifically, three patents fall under Class A, which generally covers human necessities; three patents are classified under Class B, relating to performing operations and transporting; one patent is from Class C, which includes chemistry and metallurgy; one patent belongs to Class F, covering mechanical engineering and lighting; three patents are from Class G, which pertains to physics; and seven patents are classified under Class H, related to electricity.

When compared to the overall infringement actions before the UPC, which include 63 cases in Class A, 44 in Class B, 20 in Class C, eleven in Class E, five in Class F, 51 in Class G and 123 in Class H, a trend becomes apparent. The Local Division Mannheim’s focus on Class H patents aligns with the broader UPC trend, where Class H also represents the largest category of cases.

The oral hearing at the Local Division Mannheim is set to occur within a year, reflecting the court’s commitment to timely adjudication. The Local Division Mannheim is dedicated to conducting proceedings in an efficient and result-oriented manner, ensuring that cases are handled with the utmost expediency and precision. This proactive approach not only meets the expectations of the legal community but also reinforces the confidence and hopes placed in the UPC as a pivotal institution for patent litigation in Europe.

The question of how revocation counterclaims are handled between local divisions and the Central Division has become a point of practical significance. The Local Division Mannheim has, to date, shown a tendency to retain jurisdiction over such counterclaims when they are raised in response to infringement actions, rather than referring them to the Central Division.

This approach has the procedural advantage of allowing both infringement and validity issues to be heard together, within a single forum and on a co-ordinated timeline. This can foster procedural economy and consistency in the assessment of the legal and technical aspects of a case. Notably, the Local Division Mannheim generally does not stay proceedings pending a decision from the Central Division, opting instead for comprehensive case management within its own panel.

However, this consolidated handling of infringement and revocation claims also increases the overall scope and complexity of the proceedings. Cases become significantly more demanding, both in terms of judicial resources and party submissions, often requiring more intensive preparatory work and detailed technical analysis within a compressed procedural framework.

If this trend continues, there is a realistic prospect that the current ability to schedule hearings and reach decisions within tight timeframes may be challenged. As the volume of such comprehensive cases grows, maintaining early hearing dates and swift resolutions may become increasingly difficult.

In the longer term, this raises questions about judicial capacity and procedural sustainability. Balancing the benefits of unified decision-making within local divisions against the need for efficiency and timely adjudication will likely become an important topic in the evolving practice of the UPC.

As the Mannheim Local Division has already dealt with many legal issues, only excerpts are reported here.

Enforcement of SEPs and FRAND Obligations

The Mannheim Local Division’s decision in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd (UPC_CFI_210/2023) on 22 November 2024 is the first substantive ruling by the UPC on SEPs and FRAND licensing obligations. The court applied the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Huawei v ZTE case, emphasising the necessity for a willing licensee to provide relevant sales data and engage in good-faith negotiations. The decision also addressed the admissibility of FRAND counterclaims within the UPC framework.

Jurisdictional Considerations in Cross-Border Patent Infringement Cases

In the case of Hurom Co Ltd v NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK (UPC_CFI_159/2024), the Mannheim Local Division examined jurisdictional issues arising from acts of infringement occurring before and after the entry into force of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) on 1 June 2023. The court determined that the applicable substantive law depends on the timing of the alleged infringing act, applying the UPCA to acts committed after its entry into force and national laws to acts committed before. If the infringing act is “ongoing”, the UPCA is applicable with exceptions.

Service of Process on Non-European Defendants

In the Panasonic v Xiaomi case, the Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic’s request to consider service on Xiaomi Germany as effective for its affiliates in China and Hong Kong. The court emphasised the necessity of attempting service through formal channels, such as the Hague Service Convention, before seeking approval for alternative service methods, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fairness.

In addition, there is the FRAND counterclaim, which was explained in the foregoing.

One prominent leading case is Panasonic v OPPO/Xiaomi, which represents the UPC’s first significant decision on FRAND licensing terms related to SEPs. This case is pivotal because it tackled complex technical and legal questions on SEP infringement and the balancing of patent holders’ and implementers’ rights. The thorough claim construction, active judicial engagement and handling of FRAND defences set procedural and substantive precedents that will guide future SEP litigation under the UPC system.

Another notable case is MED-EL v Advanced Bionics, involving cochlear implant technologies in the med-tech field. This dispute is recognised for its detailed exploration of technical evidence and procedural questions, particularly around expert testimony and evidence admissibility. The case helped clarify the UPC’s approach to integrating complex technical expertise within its legal framework, enhancing procedural fairness and efficiency in highly specialised patent disputes.

Additionally, the DJI case (involving the drone manufacturer DJI as a party) illustrates the Local Division Mannheim’s engagement with cutting-edge technology sectors, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and related electronic innovations. This case draws attention due to its international dimension and the interplay of complex patent portfolios, underscoring Mannheim’s role as a key venue for multinational patent enforcement and litigation strategy in relation to emerging technologies.

Pending cases in the Local Division Mannheim are as follows:

• EP3716655 – Malikie v Discord (infringement action, pending);
• EP2465265 – InterDigital v Disney(infringement action, pending);
• EP1697604 – Decathlon v OWIM/Lidl (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP3799333 – Nokia v Verifone (infringement action, pending);
• EP3652914 – Centripetal v Palo Alto (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP3821580 – Centripetal v Keysight (infringement, revocation and preservation of evidence, pending);
• EP4096288 – Samsung v ZTE (infringement action, pending);
• EP4050804 – Samsung v ZTE (infringement action, pending);
• EP2481141 – Powermat v Anker (infringement action, pending);
• EP4108413 – Sunstar v CeraCon (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP2037175 – Polidoro v Bekaert (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP2951625 – TRUMPF v IPG Laser (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP2839403 – Fingon v Samsung (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP2746957 – Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP3259902 – InterDigital v Disney (infringement action, pending);
• EP1761130 – Puratos v IREKS (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP2831787 – Irdeto v DJI (infringement action, pending);
• EP3296274 – Corning v Hisense (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP3849157 – Wilus v ASUS (infringement action, pending);
• EP4001835 – Faro v PMT Technologies (provisional measures (Rule of Procedure (RoP) 206, pending);
• EP2223589 – Windhager v bellissa (infringement and revocation action, pending);
• EP1993363 – Pohl-Boskamp v pharma-aktiva/ALDI (provisional measures (RoP206), pending);
• EP3577874 – ZTE v Samsung (infringement action, pending);
• EP3905730 – ZTE v Samsung (infringement action, pending);
• EP2689624 – HFI Innovation v Huawei (infringement action, pending); and
• EP3567731 – Huawei v MediaTek (infringement action, pending).

Based on the authors’ observations, the TQJ has proven to be a valuable and well-integrated member of the judicial panel in proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division. Far from playing a peripheral role, the TQJ actively contributes to the case by raising independent questions and engaging directly with technical aspects of the matter.

It is also evident that the legally qualified judges on the panel take care to ensure that the TQJ’s input is meaningfully addressed during oral hearings. They regularly provide the TQJ with space to articulate specific points or concerns and ensure that parties respond accordingly. This collaborative dynamic underscores the seriousness with which the court approaches the integration of technical expertise into its judicial decision-making.

The consistent inclusion of the TQJ’s perspective not only strengthens the technical foundation of the deliberations but also reflects a broader commitment to delivering high-quality decisions.

In the authors’ experience, the Mannheim Local Division works with the same precision, proactivity and attention to detail as the well-established Regional Court of Mannheim.

When it comes to granting interim measures, the Mannheim Local Division and the UPC more broadly appears to apply slightly more generous standards than the German national courts. One of the key differences lies in the assessment of the patent’s validity. While German national courts often require that the patent in question has survived either opposition and/or nullity proceedings, or at least has a robust licensing history suggesting market acceptance, the UPC has so far accepted a lower evidentiary threshold.

This was illustrated in the Pohl-Boskamp v Pharma-Aktiva decision (UPC_CFI_541/2024), in which the Mannheim Local Division granted interim measures relying on sufficient certainty of the validity. This sufficient certainty is lacking if the court considers it to be highly probable that the patent is not valid. The burden of proof lies with the defendant, as the Mannheim Local Division states in accordance with the Court of Appeal (order or 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023).

Whether the Mannheim Local Division applies the same strict urgency standard as the German national courts, namely, that a request for interim measure must be filed no later than one month after the applicant first had the opportunity to act against the defendant, has not yet been definitively answered. In its Pohl-Boskamp v Pharma-Aktiva decision, the Mannheim Local Division was able to leave this question open. The Mannheim Local Division did not consider it detrimental that the one-month period was slightly exceeded, as it recognised the applicant’s legitimate interest in first conducting a laboratory analysis to provide the necessary evidence of infringement. Nonetheless, it can cautiously be assumed that the Division may adopt a similarly strict temporal framework.

At this stage, it remains difficult to reliably assess the overall willingness of the Mannheim Local Division to grant preliminary relief. To date, only two applications for preliminary relief have been filed before this Division, which limits the ability to draw broader conclusions about its developing practice.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Oral hearings at the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division are conducted with remarkable structure and efficiency. Typically scheduled for a single day, these hearings are meticulously time-managed, allocating equal time blocks to both parties. The panel, including legally and technically qualified judges, is well-prepared and actively engages with the arguments, ensuring a focused and dynamic exchange.

Proceedings begin with a brief introduction, followed by structured pleadings from both sides. The court then conducts a highly interactive session, posing in-depth legal and technical questions – especially around claim construction, infringement or FRAND-related defences in SEP cases. Witnesses or experts are heard only if previously authorised, preserving procedural economy.

The Mannheim Division is known for its pragmatic approach, aiming to clarify issues swiftly while maintaining fairness. Parties are encouraged to avoid repetition and focus on substantive points. A decision is often reserved and delivered in writing within a few weeks.

To prepare for the oral proceedings, Judge Tochtermann has issued a police order for the hearing based on RoP 111, which is available on the UPC website (in German). It contains information on the allocation of seats, opportunities for external parties to attend the hearing and press accreditation, among other things.

Key procedural issues are described in 3.1 Topics Covered and 3.2 Leading Cases.

In the authors’ experience, the Mannheim Local Division has so far taken a careful and balanced approach to third-party access to court documents. In particular, the Division has consistently granted legitimate confidentiality protection to the parties and has actively worked with them to co-ordinate the preparation of redacted versions of documents, which can then be made publicly available.

In the case Panasonic v OPPO (UPC_CFI_210/2023), a request submitted by a law firm for access to documents was granted only to a limited extent. The court justified its decision by, among other things, pointing to technical constraints of the UPC’s CMS, which made it difficult to ensure with certainty that only those documents explicitly intended for disclosure would in fact be released.

As a result, the Mannheim Local Division decided to grant the requesting firm access to select documents – specifically, the statement of claim, the statement of defence and the counterclaim – in redacted form. The court found that such access was legitimate, particularly in light of public interest and for the purpose of academic publication.

This decision reflects, on the one hand, the technical challenges faced by the UPC’s CMS during its early operational phase, and on the other hand, the diligence with which the Mannheim Local Division handles third-party requests in order to safeguard the parties’ confidentiality interests.

Pending procedural issues are described in 3.3. Pending Casesand elsewhere throughout the chapter.

This topic is described in 3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions.

The UPC reports on the decisions of the Court of Appeal in an annual report, which is available on the UPC’S website.

Proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC involve both fixed and value-based court fees. For a standard infringement action, the fixed fee is EUR11,000. If a counterclaim for revocation is filed, an additional EUR20,000 applies. For cases where the value in dispute exceeds EUR500,000, supplementary value-based fees are added, scaling up to EUR325,000 for high-value disputes (eg, SEP/FRAND cases).

In addition to court fees, parties typically incur legal and expert costs. For moderately complex cases, total legal expenses range between EUR100,000 and EUR300,000, and can exceed EUR500,000 in high-stakes, multinational patent disputes. Costs for translations and expert evidence may also be significant.

The UPC applies a cost reimbursement scheme for the prevailing party, with maximum caps based on the value of the dispute (eg, EUR200,000 for disputes up to EUR2 million, and up to EUR2 million for the highest tiers).

Further information can be found on the UPC website – the table of court fees, and the table of upper limits for reimbursable costs based on the value in dispute, can be downloaded there.

Although both the Local Division Mannheim and the Regional Court of Mannheim benefit from strong legal expertise, their cost structures differ significantly. In proceedings before the Regional Court of Mannheim, court fees typically range from around EUR3,000 to EUR10,000, depending on the value in dispute. Attorney fees for an average case generally fall between EUR100,000 and EUR250,000, depending on the complexity and length of the litigation. It is important to note that, due to Germany’s bifurcation system, infringement and validity are handled separately, which can influence the total costs if invalidity claims are pursued separately. Technical expert fees may add another EUR20,000 to EUR50,000, while additional expenses such as evidence collection, translations and witness costs can contribute a further EUR10,000 to EUR30,000. On the whole, an average infringement proceeding before the Regional Court of Mannheim tends to cost between EUR150,000 and EUR350,000, with case durations typically being 12–18 months.

By contrast, proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim generally incur higher court fees, which start at EUR11,000 for disputes up to EUR500,000 and increase progressively with the value in dispute. Attorney fees in UPC cases are also higher, often ranging from EUR200,000 to EUR400,000 due to the broader international scope, the necessity for specialised UPC-qualified representation and the increased procedural complexity. Technical expert costs are usually somewhat higher as well, reflecting the multi-jurisdictional nature of many UPC disputes, and typically range from EUR30,000 to EUR60,000. Additional expenses related to translations, filings and procedural requirements may add EUR20,000 or more to the overall cost. UPC proceedings tend to be resolved more quickly, often within 12–15 months, which can partially offset the higher fees by reducing prolonged litigation expenses.

While the average cost of patent infringement litigation before the Local Division Mannheim of the UPC tends to be higher on a case-by-case basis compared to the Regional Court of Mannheim, the UPC offers value through consolidated cross-border enforcement. For patent holders seeking broad European protection under unitary patents, the higher initial costs may be offset by the avoidance of multiple national proceedings.

Conversely, for patents only validated in Germany, or where litigants prefer familiar national procedures, the Regional Court of Mannheim remains a cost-effective and trusted forum. Ultimately, the choice between the UPC and national court will depend on strategic, financial and portfolio-specific considerations.

At the Local Division Mannheim, several cost decisions have already been made, including those concerning the provisional reimbursement of costs in the context of an application for interim measures, cost allocation following the withdrawal of a claim and fundamental cost decisions.

In the case between the applicant G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD, ALDI Nord, et al (decision dated 20 December 2024, UPC_CFI_541/2024), the court issued interim measures regarding injunction, seizure and surrender. As the patent infringement and the validity of the patent were deemed sufficiently certain by the Local Division, it ordered the provisional reimbursement of costs.

In another case (Rematec GmbH & Co KG v Europe Forestry B.V., decision dated 31 January 2025, UPC_CFI_340/2023), the Local Division dismissed the infringement claim and fully upheld the nullity counterclaim in its final form. Since the defendant requested a partial withdrawal of the counterclaim during the oral hearing, and the claimant subsequently declared the dispute concerning the counterclaim to be concluded to the requested extent, the Local Division decided that the claimant should bear ¾ and the defendant ¼ of the litigation costs.

Following the withdrawal of infringement claims and nullity counterclaims, the Local Division ruled that each party should bear its own costs, with no reimbursement taking place (eg, orders dated 3 February 2025, ACT_545615/2023 CC_591342/2023 CC_594299/2023, CC_594307/2023, CC_594305/2023, CC_594594/2023 CC_594595/2023 and ACT_545551/2023 CC_596561/2023 CC_596895/2023). A reimbursement of court fees paid during the proceedings was ordered in connection with the withdrawal of infringement and nullity counterclaims, as seen in the decision dated 4 February 2025 (ACT_545606/2023 CC_594296/2023 CC_594472/2023, CC_594470/2023, CC_594471/2023, CC_594473/2023 CC_594474/2023).

When the claimant was only unsuccessful in respect of a minor part, such as the scope of individual legal consequences, the Local Division Mannheim regularly decided that the defendant should still bear the entire costs of the proceedings (eg, order dated 6 February 2025, UPC_CFI_210/2023 and decision dated 11 March 2025, UPC_CFI_159/2024).

Thus, the practice regarding the allocation of cost burdens resembles that of national courts and has not contained any surprises yet.

So far, the Mannheim Local Division has not issued any final judgments awarding damages. However, interim damages have been granted in some cases, with the amount in part being guided by the court fees, which served as a benchmark. Given that only two decisions to date have established patent infringement, it remains too early to assess how the Mannheim Local Division will ultimately quantify damages in final decisions. Further case law will be needed before clear trends can be identified in the court’s approach to the calculation of compensatory relief.

Advantages and disadvantages are described in other sections, such as 5.2 UPC Court Fees Compared to National Courts, 6.2 Future Trends, 6.3 The Future of National Patent Litigation and 6.4 Improvements to the UPC.

As the European patent ecosystem continues to evolve, the litigation landscape is entering a period of dynamic change. The UPC has brought about a structural shift, but beyond the institutional framework, deeper trends are beginning to shape the way patent enforcement is approached across Europe. From the strategies adopted by litigants to the cross-border implications of UPC rulings, a new phase of adaptation and innovation is underway.

Strategic Forum Shopping in a New Context

While forum shopping has long been a part of European patent litigation, the UPC has reshaped the terrain. Instead of choosing between national jurisdictions, litigants now compare options within the UPC itself – between local divisions that vary in procedural style, judicial makeup and perceived familiarity with certain industries.

Sophisticated venue strategies are likely to emerge, with plaintiffs selecting divisions based not only on geographic relevance but also on their developing reputations for speed, technical depth or past rulings. Similarly, the availability of multilingual proceedings will factor into forum selection, potentially driving certain industries towards specific divisions.

Shifts in Patent Portfolio Management and Litigation Readiness

The rise of the unitary patent is encouraging companies to reassess how they build and defend their patent portfolios. Patent holders are expected to place greater emphasis on centralised enforcement potential, seeking broader territorial coverage with fewer filings. Conversely, accused infringers may become more proactive in freedom-to-operate analyses, recognising that an adverse UPC ruling could have pan-European effect.

Legal and IP teams are also investing more heavily in litigation preparedness, anticipating faster timelines and more complex multiparty proceedings under UPC rules. Internal alignment between legal, R&D and commercial functions is becoming increasingly critical.

The Growing Importance of Interlocutory Measures

In the UPC environment, interim measures such as preliminary injunctions and protective letters are gaining strategic prominence. Their availability across multiple jurisdictions with a single application raises the stakes for both patentees and alleged infringers.

Expect an uptick in defensive filings and early motion practice, especially in fast-moving sectors like consumer electronics, biotech and software. Parties will be incentivised to act swiftly, both to seize early enforcement opportunities and to shield themselves from cross-border disruption.

Convergence and Divergence in Substantive Patent Law

Although the UPC aims to harmonise enforcement, differences in substantive legal interpretation are likely to emerge in the short to medium term. Issues such as claim construction, inventive step and indirect infringement may be treated somewhat differently depending on the division or panel.

This will prompt a push for early appellate clarification, as parties look to the UPC Court of Appeal to set guiding precedents. Over time, a gradual convergence of doctrine may be seen, but in the interim, litigation strategy will need to account for interpretive uncertainty.

Digitalisation and the Use of Technology in Litigation

Digital transformation is another area of evolution. The UPC’s digital CMS is just the beginning. The authors anticipate broader integration of AI-powered tools for case analysis, document review and litigation forecasting. Remote hearings, virtual evidence presentation and digital authentication are likely to become more common, potentially setting new expectations for procedural efficiency across all European courts.

The coming years will bring more than just procedural reform – they will redefine how parties assert and defend IP across Europe. The UPC is both a catalyst and a reflection of these broader changes. Success in this new landscape will depend not only on legal acumen, but also on adaptability, cross-functional alignment and strategic foresight.

Designed to centralise and streamline patent enforcement across participating EU member states, the UPC offers a powerful alternative to national proceedings. However, the future of national patent litigation, particularly in Germany, a jurisdiction long favoured for its efficiency and expertise, remains a subject of significant interest. For years, the Regional Court of Mannheim has been one of Germany’s most prominent venues for patent litigation. Known for its technical competence, experienced judges and relatively quick proceedings, Mannheim has been especially attractive to patent holders, particularly in sectors such as telecommunications, electronics and medical devices. Alongside Düsseldorf and Munich, it forms part of Germany’s “big three” patent courts. With the UPC’s establishment, Mannheim was selected as one of Germany’s four local divisions (alongside Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Munich). The UPC Local Division Mannheim is situated close to the Regional Court and draws on the region’s strong IP infrastructure and legal talent.

So far, the Mannheim UPC Division has seen a notable number of filings, especially in telecommunications and electronics, indicating early popularity among patent holders. The Division has also been involved in some of the first-ever FRAND decisions issued by the UPC, highlighting its role as a serious forum for international IP disputes. While the UPC has begun to attract a growing share of patent litigation, national courts like the Mannheim Regional Court remain very much in operation. European patents granted before the UPC (and those not opted into the UPC) became operational are still enforceable exclusively before national courts. Moreover, some plaintiffs may continue to prefer national courts for various reasons. Litigants and their attorneys are accustomed to German national procedures and judicial reasoning. National bifurcation (separate proceedings for validity and infringement) and tailored procedural strategies still appeal to certain claimants – and until at least 2030, patent holders can choose between the UPC and national courts, making dual-track litigation a viable option.

Germany’s role as a hub for patent enforcement is unlikely to diminish with the rise of the UPC. Instead, a rebalancing of jurisdictions is being seen, with Mannheim emerging as a pivotal location for both national and European patent litigation. The coexistence of the Regional Court of Mannheim and the UPC Local Division Mannheim represents not a redundancy, but rather a strategic advantage – offering litigants a choice between established national processes and a new, unified European framework.

A healthy competitive dynamic is beginning to emerge between the UPC and national courts, particularly in Germany. National patent courts are clearly making efforts to distinguish themselves through increased procedural efficiency. In particular, there is a noticeable trend among German courts to expedite proceedings and issue judgments more swiftly than the UPC, in part to maintain their relevance and appeal for rights holders. This development is likely to benefit the broader patent litigation landscape in Europe by driving both systems to maintain high standards of speed, predictability and legal quality.

Promoting Consistency and Transparency in Decision-Making

One of the UPC’s core strengths lies in its potential to create a unified body of case law. To realise this vision, it may be helpful to further promote the UPC’s resources, allowing the judges to spend more time on each case using the entire bandwidth of procedural options foreseen in the RoP. In addition, a searchable database of UPC decisions would be helpful, allowing users to more quickly understand the case law, which would foster legal certainty and confidence among users of the system.

Enhancing Procedural Predictability

While the UPC is designed to be flexible, early proceedings have revealed some variation in procedural approaches among different divisions. Introducing soft guidance such as practice directions or model orders could assist parties in anticipating timelines and procedural expectations. Importantly, any such initiatives could remain non-binding, allowing divisions to retain the agility necessary to handle cases on a tailored basis.

Balancing Efficiency With Thoroughness

The UPC has commendably pursued rapid case progression, which is welcomed by many stakeholders. At the same time, ensuring that parties have adequate opportunity to present their arguments, particularly in technically complex or multi-jurisdictional cases, will be vital for the quality and perceived fairness of decisions. A careful calibration of procedural timelines will help balance these two important objectives.

Supporting Judicial Capacity and Technical Expertise

As the case load of the UPC grows, continued investment in training, staffing and technical support will be essential. Ensuring that all panels, regardless of location, benefit from sufficient judicial and technical resources can help preserve the high standards that users expect from a modern, specialised court.

Fostering Dialogue With Stakeholders

Ongoing dialogue between the UPC, its users and the broader IP community will be key to the UPC’s future development. Mechanisms such as user group meetings, public consultations or feedback forums could lead to practical insights and encourage a sense of ownership and partnership among stakeholders.

The UPC has already proven its ability to handle complex and high-profile litigation with professionalism and rigor. These early reflections are offered in a spirit of respectful engagement and optimism. With thoughtful evolution and sustained co-operation, the UPC is well-positioned to become a cornerstone of European patent enforcement for decades to come.