Welcome to our August 2026 Unified Patent Court update. With the UPC recently passing its third anniversary, in this edition we report on a series of significant Court of Appeal and Local Division decisions addressing: the availability of provisional measures, including the urgency requirement and the treatment of late-stage applications; jurisdictional reach, covering both the UPC's "long-arm" jurisdiction over non-UPC territories and the limits of that reach; and procedural aspects, including the scope of evidence production orders, security for costs for SME claimants, access to pleadings by third parties, opt-outs and calculation of court fees on appeal.
UPC statistics and court news
The latest set of statistics from the court, covering the period to end of July 2026, have recently been published. So far in 2026, there have been 305 total cases filed at the Court of First Instance, with the majority continuing to come before the German Local Divisions (Munich, Düsseldorf and Mannheim are the top three Local Divisions, followed by The Hague and Hamburg). Interestingly, English now represents the language of proceedings in 69% of cases.
The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC), officially inaugurated on 2 June 2026, is the UPC's dedicated alternative dispute resolution body. It now offers three services: Information Sessions, Mediation and, as of June 2026, Expert Determination proceedings. Expert Determination is particularly well-suited to resolving standard-essential patent and FRAND licensing disputes, where independent expert input can assist with both technical and commercial aspects of a case.
Case updates
Court of Appeal clarifies urgency requirement for provisional measures – Guardant Health, Inc v Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH – UPC_CoA_19/2026
Under Rule 211.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), urgency is a threshold requirement for an application for provisional measures. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Guardant Health against the Paris Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics, holding that Guardant had not acted with the required urgency and that this failure alone was fatal, making an assessment of infringement and necessity irrelevant.
Guardant is proprietor of a European patent with unitary effect (the Patent) covering a method for detecting colorectal, ovarian, lung or pancreatic cancer using deep sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA. On 27 May 2025, it sent Sophia Genetics a warning letter concerning separate UK patents, relying on Sophia's User Manual, and began UK litigation on 14 July 2025. On 29 August 2025, it applied to the Paris Local Division for provisional measures against four Sophia group companies based on the Patent and other patents. The Local Division rejected the application, finding the Patent was more likely than not invalid for added matter, and ordered Guardant to pay €400,000 in interim costs.
The Court of Appeal found that, while a patent holder need not assert all infringed patents in a single application, and may file separate applications weeks apart, it should not turn a blind eye once a document shows infringement of one patent that may also evidence infringement of others. Given that Guardant's own warning letter relied on a User Manual disclosing the Patent's features, it knew or should have known of the alleged infringement well before its letter; the court found that a diligent holder could have established infringement by all four defendants within two weeks, meaning Guardant should have had the requisite knowledge by 15 May 2025. Its UPC application, filed only on 29 August 2025, involved an unexplained delay of over three months, defeating the urgency requirement under Rule 211.4 RoP.
The decision confirms urgency is assessed per patent and defendant from the earliest point that infringement was reasonably identifiable.
Read more
Milan Local Division refuses Ericsson's late-stage PI against ASUSTeK
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. - UPC_CFI_1129/2026
The Milan Local Division has dismissed Ericsson's application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK, brought partway through already well-advanced infringement proceedings relating to a HEVC/H.265 standard-essential patent.
The court confirmed that a request for provisional measures can be filed at any stage of the main proceedings but, where the merits case is already well advanced, the bar for urgency and balance of interests becomes significantly stricter. The applicant must show a real change in circumstances that makes it untenable for the applicant to wait for the final decision ("the applicant must highlight any new or escalating risk that has arisen during the ongoing proceedings and explain why these new facts alter the existing situation to such an extent that a provisional measure is necessary and that it would not be justified to wait for a decision on the merits"). Ericsson could not clear that bar, and the application was dismissed (together with its fallback request for security for damages).
Ericsson had brought infringement proceedings against ASUSTeK and Arvato in June 2024 in respect of EP 2727342 (relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology) (the Patent), alleging that ASUSTeK's laptops, desktops and Chromebooks implementing the standard infringed the Patent. With the merits trial not listed until 24-25 September 2026 (over two years after the claim was filed), Ericsson applied on 1 April 2026 for a preliminary injunction, pointing to three supposedly new developments: the delay in the main proceedings, two recent German infringement judgments against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new ASUSTeK products.
The court found that delay in the main proceedings was not a "new circumstance". The case had genuine complexity and the trial date did not amount to a new, different and unequivocal deterioration in Ericsson's position. Further, the German judgments had no relevance to the case as conduct in unrelated cases could not be imported into the Ericsson dispute absent evidence of systematic evasive conduct. Meanwhile, the new product launches were simply business as usual activities.
The court also refused Ericsson's fallback request that ASUSTeK be ordered to put up a bank guarantee to protect any future damages. The court doubted whether such an order was even available, and in any event found no evidence of systematic evasive conduct or deteriorating solvency to justify it.
Court of Appeal guidance on SMEs and security for costs
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm - UPC_CoA_48/2026
The Court of Appeal has issued a decision which makes clear that a party's status as a small or medium-sized enterprise does not, by itself, exempt it from an obligation to provide security for costs.
At a defendant's request, the court may order a claimant to provide adequate security for legal costs and other expenses. In this case, La Siddhi was the claimant in revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division. Following an application by the defendant, Athena, the court required La Siddhi to provide security for costs of €75,000 for Athena's costs on the basis that Athena had sufficiently substantiated, using publicly available financial information, a legitimate and real concern that a future costs order against La Siddhi might not be recoverable. La Siddhi failed to rebut that evidence with more detailed or up-to-date financial information.
One of the issues before the Court of Appeal was the impact of SME status. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The court contrasted this with (i) Rule 370.8 RoP, which allows a reduction in court fees for SMEs, and (ii) Art. 2(2) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 which provides that a party can request a lower ceiling on recoverable costs where an award at the full ceiling would threaten its economic existence. However, the rules on security (Article. 69(4) UPCA / Rule 158 RoP) contain no equivalent exception or restriction for SMEs and draw no distinction between types of parties at all.
On the level of security to be provided, the court confirmed that security should be set starting from the applicable recoverable-costs ceiling (here €112,000) and weighted against the case's circumstances, with SME status capable of being taken into account as one such circumstance. Setting security at roughly 60% of the ceiling (€75,000) was reasonable and no further reduction was needed.
Court of Appeal confirms Central Division jurisdiction over action against defendants domiciled both within and outside the UPC
Valeo Systemes D'Essuyage v Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, Robert Bosch Produktie S.A – UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026
This appeal concerned, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the UPC's Central Division to hear infringement actions. Valeo sued six Bosch entities for infringement of EP 2 671 766 before the Paris Central Division. Four defendants were domiciled in UPC states; two, Robert Bosch Doo Belgrade (Serbia) and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd. (China), were not.
Following a preliminary objection filed by Bosch concerning competence of the Paris Central Division to hear the action, the court held it lacked jurisdiction, finding that Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA – providing a Central Division with competence to hear infringement actions for defendants domiciled outside the UPC - applies only where all defendants are domiciled outside UPC territory. The whole action was referred to the Düsseldorf Local Division.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and restored the action to the Central Division (Paris). It held that Article 33(1), third subparagraph, is not an exception to local/regional division jurisdiction but an autonomous, alternative basis of jurisdiction, applying whenever at least one defendant is domiciled outside UPC territory. The anchor-defendant mechanism under Article 33(1)(b) extends to such defendants, avoiding fragmented proceedings and inconsistent decisions.
Why this matters: this is the Court of Appeal's first comprehensive interpretation of Article 33(1). It confirms the Central Division can act as a consolidating forum for multi-defendant actions spanning UPC and non-UPC domiciled entities. Claimants suing multinational groups now have a clearer route to keep the whole action together before the Central Division, likely increasing the flow of cases to the Paris and Milan Central Divisions.
Court of Appeal confirms German injunction, refuses UK relief
Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH – UPC_CoA_473 & UPC_CoA_873/2025 & UPC_CoA_474/2025 & UPC_CoA_881/2025
In June 2026, we reported on the Court of Appeal's decision in this case, in which it confirmed the court's jurisdiction could extend to the UK, articulating rules to govern how the UPC should approach non-UPC designations.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal has overturned the Mannheim Local Division's finding that the German designation of Fujifilm's patent was invalid. Finding the patent valid and infringed, the court granted Fujifilm an injunction covering Germany. The injunction prohibits Kodak from making, offering, marketing, using or storing the infringing lithographic printing plate precursors, and carries a penalty for non-compliance of up to €50 per square metre of plate or €10,000 per day, with the choice between the two at Fujifilm's option.
However, the court dismissed Fujifilm's appeal on the UK designation and rejected its UK infringement claims entirely. The injunction therefore applies to Germany only, and the potential for "long-arm" relief did not ultimately arise in this case.
Hamburg Local Division draws the line on long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC territories
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v Infoblox INC. o.a. – UPC_CFI_360/2026 & UPC_CFI_360/2026
This case highlights two important aspects of UPC practice: (1) the limits of the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC defendants and territories, and (2) confirmation that a claimant's domicile outside the UPC and EU does not, by itself, justify an order for security for costs.
Jurisdiction
Nixu, a US company, brought UPC infringement proceedings against Infoblox Inc. (US), Infoblox Germany (DE), and Nomios Germany (DE) for infringement of European patent EP2005696 in Germany, France, Finland, and the UK. Jurisdiction over the German defendants was not in dispute; however, Infoblox Inc challenged the court's international jurisdiction over it.
Nixu relied primarily on Article 8(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, arguing the German defendants could serve as "anchor defendants" for Infoblox Inc since all three were alleged to infringe the same patent using the same software, thereby forming a close connection between the defendants.
The court held that a defendant sued on the basis of its domicile can anchor jurisdiction for the entire UPC territory, extending to non-EU defendants by Article 71b(2). As the German defendants were incorporated in Germany and shown to be active in, or supportive of, distribution within the UPC territory, they could anchor jurisdiction over Infoblox in Germany, France, and Finland.
The position was different for the UK. Whilst jurisdiction over UPC-domiciled defendants can in principle extend to non-UPC and non-EU acts, the close connection required by Article 8(1) must be pleaded on a country-specific basis. The UPC's universal jurisdiction over the German defendants was not sufficient and it was not enough that all three defendants might individually infringe different national parts of the same patent without acting jointly in the UK. As Nixu had not pleaded facts specifically showing joint UK infringement by Infoblox and at least one of the German anchor defendants, the UK claim against Infoblox was dismissed as inadmissible.
This decision sits alongside the Hamburg Local Division's order in Dyson v Dreame, the Paris Local Division's approach in BMS v BYD, and the Court of Appeal's framework in Adobe, OpenAI & Others v KeeeX, and Kodak v Fujifilm.
Security for costs
The Infoblox defendants applied for an order requiring Nixu to provide security for their legal costs and expenses. Nixu had been incorporated in Texas in March 2025, acquiring the patent from FusionLayer Oy weeks later, and issuing proceedings shortly afterwards. The defendants argued that Nixu was accordingly a newly established litigation vehicle with no actual assets of its own. A US securities filing showed that Nixu's patents, licences, income, and royalties had all been pledged to its funder under a Patent Security Agreement, and part of the purchase price for the portfolio remained unpaid. The defendants further argued that enforcing a UPC costs order in Florida, where Nixu is domiciled, was uncertain.
The Hamburg Local Division rejected the domicile argument. It held that a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs, finding no reason to doubt that US courts (including in Florida) would recognise and enforce European court judgments in practice, and that Florida's statutory recognition criteria reflect standard international norms also found in Europe.
However, Nixu's financial position did justify security. Given that it was a newly formed, single-purpose litigation entity, and all of its patents, licences, and future income had been pledged to its funder, the court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on its funder's discretionary willingness to continue funding, which the defendants could not rely on to enforce a costs award.
The court ordered Nixu to provide security of €200,000.
Court of Appeal limits the scope of production of evidence
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v Dall Energy ApS – UPC_CoA_57/2026
The Court of Appeal has narrowed the scope of an evidence production order issued by the Copenhagen Local Division, emphasising the need for disclosure measures to be strictly necessary and proportionate.
The patent in suit concerns a method for producing clean hot gas from solid fuel. At first instance, the court ordered the defendant, Polytechnik, to produce construction drawings relating to the allegedly infringing furnace at the site in issue, as well as corresponding drawings from other sites, together with manuals and other materials provided to customers. The documents were to be disclosed within two weeks, subject to a penalty of up to €1,000 per day of delay.
Polytechnik appealed on several grounds, including that the order was overly broad and insufficiently targeted, lacked adequate justification as to the relevance of the requested documents, amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition, was incompatible with the principle against self-incrimination, and did not provide sufficient confidentiality safeguards.
In assessing these arguments, the Court of Appeal applied the framework for evidence production under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP. It reiterated the importance of these provisions in patent disputes, where relevant technical and commercial information is often held exclusively by the opposing party or third parties, creating evidential asymmetries that disclosure measures are intended to address.
The court largely upheld the order but found that the Local Division had exceeded the limits of its discretion by ordering disclosure beyond what was necessary and proportionate to assess the disputed features. It therefore limited disclosure of construction drawings to the allegedly infringing site and restricted operation and maintenance manuals to those relevant to the contested features. The category of "other materials" was rejected as insufficiently defined and unsupported.
Court of Appeal clarifies requirements for seeking review of an unauthorised opt-out
Silimed Indústria de Implantes Ltda v Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH – UPC_CoA_066/2026
This case concerns European patent EP 2 581 193 (the Patent), granted to Polytech on 25 November 2015, then transferred and re-registered to Silimed following entitlement proceedings by order of the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main of 28 November 2024 (the order became final on 5 January 2026). Polytech had opted the Patent out of the UPC's exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court on 30 March 2023, i.e., before the Patent was re-registered to Silimed.
In January 2026, a company belonging to the same group of companies as Polytech filed an action for revocation of the German part of the Patent before the Bundespatentgericht in Munich, Germany.
Silimed sought to have Polytech's opt-out removed, arguing that, following the transfer of the Patent, Polytech was never entitled to the Patent or the invention to which the Patent relates, and therefore its opt-out was an unauthorised application. The registrar rejected the application for removal of Polytech's opt-out, so Silimed applied for a review of the registrar's decision.
The Court of Appeal rejected the review of the registrar's decision. Silimed had relied on the 2024 order of the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, which had ordered Polytech to transfer all national parts of the Patent to Silimed, to argue that Polytech never had a right to the Patent. However, this ruling did not have retroactive effect. Therefore, when Polytech filed its application to opt the Patent out, it qualified to be registered as proprietor in the national register and held the authority to do so.
The decision confirms that the Court of Appeal will not easily overturn a UPC opt-out made by an appropriately registered applicant, even where there are ongoing disputes concerning proprietorship.
Access to pleadings: UPC Court of Appeal confirms law firms as "members of the public"
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – UPC_CoA_52/2026 & UPC_CoA_53/2026
The Court of Appeal has issued two orders dismissing appeals brought by Huawei, clarifying that law firms are considered "members of the public" under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The court reaffirmed that professional development and gaining a better understanding of how the UPC operates constitute "legitimate interests" sufficient to support a reasoned request for access to pleadings. The ruling has practical significance for patent practitioners wishing to analyse UPC case strategy and court practice.
The court’s decision also resolved certain procedural ambiguities arising from the "hybrid nature" of access requests. It clarified that decisions made by a Judge Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) are subject to review by the panel under Rule 333 before they can be appealed to the Court of Appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3. This framework ensures that the full panel reviews the matter first to avoid unnecessary appeals.
The court confirmed that, once proceedings have concluded, the balancing of interests generally favours granting access, as the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings is diminished. Consequently, the court upheld the grant of access subject to redaction of confidential information, but refused to impose additional confidentiality undertakings on the requesting law firm.
Court of Appeal clarifies approach to calculating court fees in appeals
Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC – UPC_CoA_68/2026
In this case, NST had brought infringement proceedings in the Munich Local Division against Qualcomm and two Samsung companies (the action against Samsung was later withdrawn); Qualcomm counterclaimed for revocation. NST was successful on both the infringement and revocation counterclaim. The value of the infringement dispute was set at €3,000,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €4,500,000.
The matter before the Court of Appeal concerned the court fees for the appeal. In relation to Qualcomm's appeal, the court confirmed that the court fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a counterclaim for revocation is the fee payable for filing a counterclaim for revocation at first instance at the time the appeal is filed, increased by 10%. Meanwhile, NST had argued that the value of the actions should be set lower as Samsung was no longer a respondent on the appeal. However, the court said it could not revise the value of the claim set at first instance – any objections should be raised as part of the grounds of appeal. Further, the value of the action had been determined by the court at first instance at a time when the action against Samsung had already been withdrawn.
How Mishcon de Reya can help
Mishcon de Reya advises clients on all aspects of UPC litigation and patent strategy. If any of the developments covered in this update raise questions relevant to your portfolio or pending proceedings, please contact a member of our patents team.