Introduction
Three years ago, the Unified Patent Court launched with a promise: simpler, faster, more unified patent enforcement across Europe. A single court system. Pan-European coverage. Less forum shopping, less fragmentation.
The data from those three years tells a more specific story. By June 2025, the UPC’s Court of First Instance had received 946 cases. Of the 320 infringement actions filed UPC-wide, 244 were filed in Germany. Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, and Hamburg together account for 75% of all UPC infringement filings. Germany didn’t lose its dominance in European patent litigation when the UPC launched. It expanded it.
For companies selling products across Europe, that changes the risk calculation. A patent that previously represented a Germany-specific infringement risk now represents a risk that can be enforced pan-European from the same German local divisions — in a single proceeding, with a single injunction covering 17 EU member states. This article breaks down what three years of UPC data actually tells us about infringement risk in Europe, which industries are most exposed, and what it means for your infringement search strategy.
Three Years of UPC: What the Numbers Show
Let’s start with the raw picture.
By the end of June 2025, the UPC Court of First Instance had received 946 cases — 320 infringement actions, 321 counterclaims for revocation, and 61 standalone revocation actions. The Court of Appeal added further volume. By any measure, the UPC is operating at a meaningful scale, and activity is accelerating. A third panel was added to the Court of Appeal in October 2025. Munich and Düsseldorf added additional panels.
Here’s where it gets interesting for product companies. The geographic distribution of those 320 infringement actions isn’t spread evenly across Europe. It’s highly concentrated:
- Munich: 111 infringement actions — the leading UPC venue globally, driven by pharma, biotech, and precision engineering cases
- Düsseldorf: 65 cases — the dominant venue for consumer electronics, mobile communications, and SEP-related cases
- Mannheim: 45 cases — leading in automotive, industrial technology, and telecommunications infrastructure
- Hamburg: 23 cases — growing docket in software, digital services, and consumer products
Add those up and you get 244 out of 320 infringement actions filed in Germany — 76% of the total. The UPC hasn’t redistributed European patent enforcement. It has amplified the existing concentration of expertise and patent-friendly infrastructure in Germany and given it pan-European reach.
What the UPC Changed for Patent Holders — and Why It Matters for Defendants
To understand why the UPC matters for your infringement risk picture, you need to understand what it changed about European patent enforcement.
Pre-UPC: European patents were ‘bundle patents’ — a collection of national patents, each enforced in its home jurisdiction. A German infringement action covered Germany. A French action covered France. If you wanted pan-European enforcement, you had to file in each national court separately. Expensive, slow, and strategically limited.
Post-UPC: European patents that haven’t been opted out of the UPC system can be enforced in a single UPC proceeding with pan-European effect. One claim. One court. One injunction potentially covering all 17 UPC participating member states. The risk profile of a European patent has changed fundamentally.
A patent that was previously a manageable, country-by-country infringement risk is now a company-wide European enforcement event. And the UPC is moving fast — first-instance decisions typically issue within 12 months. If you want to understand how this court system has evolved over its first three years, our analysis of how the Unified Patent Court is shaping Europe’s patent landscape covers the structural changes in detail.
The long-arm reach has also expanded in ways that matter for non-EU companies. In January 2025, the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division ruled in Fujifilm v. Kodak that the UPC’s jurisdiction can extend to non-UPC states — specifically the UK — under certain circumstances involving defendants domiciled in UPC territory. Subsequent decisions extended this further. The Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction spanning UPC countries, non-ratified states, Lugano Convention countries — including Switzerland, Norway, and Liechtenstein — and the UK. If your company distributes products through European entities, the UPC’s reach may extend to your global operations.
Which Industries Are Most Exposed
The UPC’s caseload isn’t distributed evenly across industries. Three years of filing data shows clear concentration patterns — and they tell you a lot about where the infringement risk is highest.
- Pharmaceuticals and biologics (Munich local division). The Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron complex — named ‘Impact Case of the Year 2026’ by Managing IP — set landmark precedents on director liability and patent scope. Munich’s biotech expertise and fast-moving docket have made it the preferred venue for originator pharma companies asserting against biosimilar and generic entrants. For pharmaceutical companies operating in Europe, Munich is the venue to watch.
- SEPs and mobile communications (Düsseldorf local division). Düsseldorf issued the UPC’s first-ever FRAND decision in Dolby v. Beko in 2025 — applying the Sisvel v. Haier framework and dismissing the FRAND defence for failure to engage in good-faith negotiations. Nokia, Ericsson, Panasonic, and other SEP assertion campaigns are active at Düsseldorf. Technology companies implementing 5G, LTE, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth and selling into Europe face real SEP exposure in this division.
- Automotive and industrial technology (Mannheim local division). Continental, Bosch supply chain cases, and automotive component disputes dominate the Mannheim docket. For automotive suppliers and industrial technology companies, Mannheim is the highest-risk European patent enforcement venue.
- Consumer electronics and software (growing across all divisions). The Dyson v. Dreame International case in Hamburg — a preliminary injunction covering UPC territory, Lugano Convention countries, and the UK — illustrates how consumer electronics companies are using the UPC as an aggressive enforcement tool across the full European market. Software and digital services cases are growing across all four German divisions.
“The UPC hasn’t changed which patents exist in Europe. It’s changed what they can do. A patent that used to represent a Germany-specific enforcement risk now represents pan-European enforcement potential from the same German local divisions that already dominate European patent litigation.”
How the UPC Changes Your Infringement Search Scope
Here’s the practical consequence for any company selling products in Europe: an infringement search scoped only to national patents in individual EU countries is no longer sufficient.
European patents validated in UPC participating states are now subject to pan-European proceedings. This has three specific implications for how infringement searches need to be structured:
- EPO-granted patents carry pan-European enforcement potential from day one. A competitor holding a European patent that hasn’t been opted out of the UPC system can enforce it across all 17 participating states from a single proceeding. Your infringement search needs to cover EPO-granted patents across all UPC participating states — not just the national patents in your primary sales market.
- Continuation applications and divisionals filed at the EPO now carry pan-European risk. A competitor filing a continuation or divisional at the EPO creates a new patent with pan-European enforcement potential. Monitoring competitor continuation filings at the EPO is a critical part of any ongoing European infringement risk programme.
- Competitor portfolios built on European patents are significantly more powerful than they were pre-UPC. A portfolio of 10 European patents pre-UPC represented 10 national enforcement actions. Post-UPC, the same 10 patents can be asserted in a single proceeding with pan-European effect. The strategic value — and the offensive threat — of a European patent portfolio has increased materially.
The distinction that matters for search scope: whether a given European patent has been opted out of the UPC system. Patent holders can opt their European patents out of the UPC, meaning those patents remain under national enforcement only. For the infringement search, patents still within the UPC system carry the full pan-European enforcement risk. Our piece on how the global shift in patent invalidation intersects with the UPC’s revocation mechanisms covers how the validity challenge picture has changed alongside the enforcement landscape.
How Our Infringement Search Service Covers UPC Risk
Our patent infringement search service is structured for exactly the UPC environment described above — covering EPO-granted European patents across all 17 UPC participating states, national bundle patents still enforced nationally, and pending EPO applications that will grant as unitary patents.
For each engagement, we identify whether potentially blocking patents have been opted out of the UPC system or remain within its jurisdiction — because the enforcement risk profile is different for each. We flag patents held by UPC-active asserters — patent holders who have already demonstrated a pattern of UPC enforcement activity at Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, or Hamburg. A competitor who has filed 15 cases in the UPC’s first three years represents a materially higher enforcement threat than one who hasn’t filed a single case.
For companies selling into Germany specifically, we structure infringement searches to cover the specific dockets of the Munich, Düsseldorf, and Mannheim local divisions — the three venues that together handle nearly 70% of all UPC infringement filings — and identify the patent holders with the most active enforcement posture in each.
Selling products in Europe? Three years of UPC data shows the infringement risk is real, concentrated, and increasingly pan-European. Our infringement search service covers the UPC landscape before it becomes a demand letter. → Contact Us
Conclusion: The Takeaway
Three years of UPC data has answered the question that practitioners had when the court launched: did the UPC change European patent enforcement? Yes — and decisively in Germany’s favour.
The German local divisions handle 75% of all UPC infringement filings. A single proceeding in Munich, Düsseldorf, or Mannheim can now result in a pan-European injunction covering 17 EU member states. And the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction has already been tested and extended to non-UPC territories in multiple decisions.
For product companies selling into Europe, that means European infringement risk is now pan-European risk. The infringement search that clears a product for the German market doesn’t clear it for pan-European launch. The scope, the risk weighting, and the monitoring programme all need to reflect the UPC reality — not the pre-2023 national court model that no longer describes how European patent enforcement actually works.
