Welcome to the latest edition of our UPC update. In this edition, we report on key developments ranging from the court's ongoing consideration of its long-arm jurisdiction (including the first reference made by the UPC to the European Court of Justice) to a significant decision of the Court of Appeal confirming that, where a claimant has litigation insurance (with robust anti-avoidance endorsement) in place, this should mean that no security for costs is necessary, thereby eliminating the need in such cases for cash deposits or bank guarantees. We also cover the latest anti-suit injunction granted by the UPC, and important decisions relating to confidentiality and access to documents.
UPC statistics and court news
The UPC has returned to publishing its statistics, with the latest set (covering the period up to end of March 2026) being published on 14 April 2026. Headlines include over 1100 cases before the court since its inception on 1 June 2023, with 125 cases filed in 2026. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal continues to play an important early interpretive role, with over 300 appeals lodged at the Court of Appeal (45 in 2026).
The majority of cases filed in the first instance courts continue to be in Germany and the Chairman of the UPC Advisory Committee has sought input from stakeholders regarding the reasons for the current distribution of cases (and potential steps that might be taken as a result), leading to a number of strong views from in particular respondents based in Germany and those based elsewhere. It will be interesting to see whether the UPC takes steps to make structural changes as a result.
First CJEU reference: Court of Appeal refers questions on the extent of UPC's long-arm jurisdiction – Dyson Technology v Dreame International and Eurep – UPC_CoA_789&813/2025
Dyson issued infringement proceedings in the Hamburg Local Division against Dreame and others in relation to its 'Airwrap' hair styling product. Originally, a preliminary injunction was granted in respect of the UPC territories, which was extended to Spain in respect of one Dreame entity (a Hong Kong company – Dream International) and Eurep, a German-registered authorised representative acting on Dreame's behalf.
Both parties appealed: Dyson sought to extend the injunction to new Dreame products, whilst Dreame sought to set aside the injunction entirely.
The Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings in two respects: (i) the action against Dreame International relating to Spain, and (ii) the action against Eurep. Both raised unresolved questions of EU law about the risk of irreconcilable judgments, requiring interpretation from the CJEU.
The Court of Appeal has now referred four questions to the CJEU concerning the UPC's jurisdiction in non-UPC contracting states and the effect of intermediaries based in UPC contracting states. In summary:
- Can Eurep (based in Germany) be used as an anchor defendant to give the UPC jurisdiction over Dreame International's alleged infringement in Spain (not a UPC contracting state)?
- Does the UPC have jurisdiction to grant provisional measures in relation to Spain given that the same alleged infringing products are offered in both UPC and non-UPC EU member states through websites that are identical apart from the language?
- Is the fact that Dreame International uses the services of Eurep (which is based in a UPC contracting state) in order to allegedly infringe a relevant circumstance?
- Is Eurep's role as an 'authorised representative' under EU safety regulations (albeit it is not in practice capable of controlling Dreame International's acts) enough for it to be treated as an 'intermediary whose services are used' for the alleged infringement and against whom a preliminary injunction can be granted?
Hamburg Local Division grants preliminary injunction to cover Spain but not UK – Dyson v Dreame – UPC_CFI_2255/2025
Returning to the same Dyson patent for its 'Airwrap' hair styler, we reported on a preliminary injunction obtained against Dreame in the UPC contracting states and Spain in our September 2025 update.
Dyson has sought a further preliminary injunction in respect of Dreame's new versions of its hair styling products. The Hamburg Local Division has again granted a preliminary injunction to cover the UPC contracting states and Spain, but refused to grant it in relation to the UK.
The preliminary injunction covered Spain because the alleged infringing acts done in Spain were done by a Dutch company and the UPC's jurisdiction was established by the domicile of the company, not the location where the alleged infringing acts occurred. The Dutch company also served as an anchor defendant for another defendant, Dreame International (Hong Kong-based), as they were jointly active in the distribution of the alleged infringing products in Spain. This differs from the facts referred to the CJEU (set out above), as here the anchor defendant itself is an alleged infringer, not simply an intermediary.
However, the Dutch company could not serve as an anchor defendant for the UK defendant, Cellcom, with respect to the UK as there was not a sufficiently close connection between them. The Dutch company was listed as Dreame's 'Authorised Representative' in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) purely for the purpose of EU product safety regulations in respect of the soft border between Ireland (in the EU) and Northern Ireland and was not directed at the majority of the UK market. It was therefore not foreseeable that Cellcom would come within the UPC's jurisdiction in such circumstances and there was not a sufficient basis for the Dutch company to be a joint tortfeasor or intermediary under English law in order to bring Cellcom within the UPC's jurisdiction.
Court of Appeal defines limits on the reach of long-arm jurisdiction – Adobe, OpenAI & Others v KeeeX UPC_CoA_922-925/2025
KeeeX, a French company, brought infringement proceedings in the Paris Local Division against Adobe, OpenAI and others (all based in the US or Ireland) in relation to its patent for a method for externally verifying the integrity and authenticity of digital data blocks.
The defendants filed preliminary objections, but the Paris Local Division upheld the court's jurisdiction to hear alleged infringements committed in Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. The defendants appealed.
The core jurisdictional dispute was whether the UPC could assert jurisdiction over patent infringement in countries that are not UPC contracting states. The Court of Appeal upheld the defendants' appeal, declaring the UPC had no jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of the patent, for the following reasons.
Where jurisdiction is established under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (the Recast Brussels Regulation), i.e., on the basis of the court of the place where damage occurred or may occur (here the verification software was accessible on the internet in France), the UPC's jurisdiction was limited to its own territory and could not extend to non-UPC countries.
Meanwhile, Article 71b(3) of Brussels Recast provides that, where a court has jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled outside the EU relating to an infringement of a European patent which has caused damage within the EU, that court can also exercise jurisdiction in respect of damage caused by that infringement outside the EU. The damage outside the EU must be ancillary to the damage within the EU. To establish jurisdiction under Article 71b(3), it must be shown that the defendant owns property located in an EU member state with which the dispute has a connection. KeeeX's facts and submissions were insufficient to establish jurisdiction on this basis.
Paris Local Division declines jurisdiction over UK defendant not alleged to infringe in the EU – BMS v BYD - UPC_CFI_2070/2025
The Paris Local Division has concluded that it has no international jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled in a third country (i.e., not the UPC or EU, here the UK), where that defendant was not alleged to have committed any act of infringement within the territory of a Member State of the EU.
US company BMS had sued various BYD entities, including companies domiciled in the People's Republic of China, the Netherlands, France, Germany and UK. The PRC and UK defendants filed a preliminary objection, particularly in relation to alleged infringing acts taking place in the UK.
In relation to the UK defendant, the court noted that the alleged acts of infringement took place exclusively in the UK. As the UK defendant was also not domiciled in the EU, there was no connection with the UPC territory or EU: "the UK defendant cannot be expected to be sued before the UPC where its acts are limited to UK territory".
However, the position was different for the PRC defendants. Whilst these defendants were not domiciled in the EU, they were also accused of acts of infringement within the EU, as well as in the UK. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction in respect of these defendants to also determine the alleged infringing acts in the UK, because the claims were closely connected to those brought against the other defendants in the EU, as well as the UK, so as to avoid the risk of irreconcilable decisions.
Mannheim Local Division grants without notice anti-suit injunction re Chinese interim licence application – Nokia v Geely – UPC_CFI_1291/2026
We have reported separately on ongoing developments relating to the InterDigital v Amazon case, where the UPC granted InterDigital an "anti-interim licence injunction", prohibiting Amazon from making an application in UK proceedings for an interim licence. The Court of Appeal will hear Amazon's appeal against this order on 28 May 2026.
In the meantime, the Mannheim Local Division has granted a without notice anti-interim licence injunction to Nokia against Chinese company Geely (a similar order was made by the Munich Regional Court), subject to a penalty of €50 million. In response to UPC infringement proceedings brought by Nokia relating to its standard essential patents (SEPs), Geely had brought proceedings in the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court seeking to establish terms of a global FRAND licence and included an application for a global interim licence (which was classified as confidential).
The Mannheim court concluded that Geely's application was in effect an anti-suit injunction aimed against Nokia exercising its rights to obtain an injunction before the UPC. Meanwhile, the proceedings in China continue and further information is awaited on the outcome.
Court of Appeal confirms litigation insurance can be taken into account on security for costs applications – Syntorr v Arthrex – UPC_CoA_889/2025
Syntorr brought infringement proceedings in the Munich Local Division against various Arthrex companies. Arthrex filed an application for security for costs, which was ordered in the sum of €2 million. Whilst Syntorr provided a bank guarantee to cover the security, it also sought a review of the order for security. In particular, it argued that it had the benefit of insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement (i.e., preventing the insurer cancelling or avoiding payment) from an insurer licensed in the EU. Arthrex argued, for various reasons, that the policy did not provide an adequate level of protection.
The court rejected Arthrex's concerns and concluded that, as a result of the terms of the insurance policy, the financial situation of Syntorr did not give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable or only in an unduly burdensome way. The court therefore held the order for security was not necessary.
Court of Appeal confirms approach to security for costs on appeals – Suinno v Microsoft – UPC_CoA_21/2026
Under the UPC Agreement, an order for security for costs can only be made against an applicant and not in its favour. In this case, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, given an appellant initiates the appeal proceedings, they are the 'applicant' and therefore only the respondent is entitled to request security for costs in the appeal proceedings (including where the respondent is the claimant). Where both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only be able to request security for costs of the other party's appeal.
Suinno had lodged infringement proceedings against Microsoft in the Paris Central Division, with Microsoft lodging a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered Suinno to provide security for costs for the infringement proceedings, which Suinno has to date failed to pay. The Central Division revoked the patent and Suinno appealed. Microsoft filed an application for security for the costs of the appeal – the court concluded that Microsoft was entitled to lodge the request in respect of the costs of the appeal in the sum of €600,000. However, the court refused to stay the appeal proceedings pending payment by Suinno of an earlier costs order.
Question of FRAND rate determination jurisdiction deferred – Vivo Mobile Communication and others v Sun Patent Trust – UPC_CoA_904/2025 & UPC_CoA_905/2025
Sun filed a claim against Vivo in the Paris Local Division for infringement of a standard essential patent (SEP), asking the court to (a) determine the infringement question (b) decide the terms of a FRAND licence, and (c) grant an injunction restraining infringement if Vivo did not accept a licence on terms the court considered to be FRAND. Vivo filed a preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction to make the FRAND determination.
The court rejected Vivo's application. It held that the main issue was infringement, the question of what licence terms would be FRAND was incidental, and the question of jurisdiction could be determined in the main proceedings. The Court of Appeal has now dismissed Vivo's appeal. It considered that the Paris Local Division was right to defer the jurisdiction question to the main proceedings. This was a case management decision with which it should not interfere. The first instance court would only have to decide whether it had jurisdiction to make a FRAND determination if it found that the SEP was infringed and would only need to decide whether to grant an injunction restraining infringement if Vivo refused to accept a licence on those terms.
This decision therefore leaves open questions regarding the scope of FRAND relief that the UPC considers it has jurisdiction to dispense. No doubt the decision of the Court of Appeal following the forthcoming hearing (scheduled for 28 May 2026) in InterDigital v Amazon will provide guidance to the Local Division.
Court of Appeal orders licensing bars on defendants' employees – Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust – UPC_CoA_791/2025 & UPC_CoA_793/2025 and Ericsson v ASUS – UPC_CoA_631/2025
In these two decisions, handed down on the same day, the Court of Appeal imposed licensing bars (of different durations) on a party's employees in preference to making an "external eyes only" confidentiality order (i.e., granting access only to legal representatives and external experts) in relation to comparable licence agreements.
The court confirmed that the fact that a person was an employee of a party was not sufficient to deny access to documents to that person. Any potential harm for third parties (in both cases, Apple had intervened in the proceedings on this point) could be mitigated by requiring the relevant employee to refrain from being involved in patent licensing negotiations (without the relevant counterparty's consent) for a certain period of time. This was because such employees could not "unlearn information" that they have become aware of when given access.
In Vivo v Sun Patent, Sun had requested a two-year licensing bar period and this had not been disputed by Vivo (though the court confirmed the two years ran from the date of the order and not after ceasing to be in possession/having access to the documents).
Meanwhile, in Ericsson v ASUS, the licensing bar was applied in relation to the defendant's employee for a period of five years from the date of the order.
Confidentiality clubs: Munich Local Division rejects representative-based restrictions – UERAN Technology v Xiaomi Corporation – UPC_CFI_609/2025
The Munich Local Division has delivered an order clarifying that confidentiality clubs cannot be used as a tool to restrict a party’s choice of representative. The court reaffirmed that Article 48 UPC Agreement grants litigants a "fundamental right to freely choose" their legal team, a right that remains unaffected by whether a representative holds a legal or technical qualification. This aligns with the principle that lawyers and patent attorneys must be treated equally under the UPC framework.
The claimant had appointed a representative team comprising both legal representatives and patent attorneys. The defendants subsequently sought to amend a confidentiality order to restrict access to confidential information exclusively to the claimant's lawyers, arguing that the inclusion of patent attorneys was not necessary for non-technical aspects of the case.
The court rejected the defendants' efforts to bar the claimant’s patent attorneys from the confidentiality club, emphasising that the professional competence of patent attorneys is not confined to technical matters. Consequently, they cannot be excluded from viewing documents simply because of their technical background. By upholding this parity between representative types under Article 48 (representation) and Article 58 (protection of confidential information) of the UPC Agreement, the court effectively prevented the use of confidentiality orders to strategically weaken an opponent's chosen representation.
Additionally, the court rejected the defendants' attempt to exclude a proposed expert (a Chinese lawyer) from the confidentiality club based on alleged concerns regarding their independence. The defendants had failed to establish what information the expert would obtain from the confidentiality club that they did not already hold by virtue of their advisory role. The questions of independence and objectivity instead fell to be determined in the context of expert evidence, not in relation to the confidentiality club.
Court of Appeal clarifies there is no implicit confidentiality on use of information disclosed at the UPC – EOFlow v Insulet – UPC_CoA_930/2025
In April 2025, the Court of Appeal found that EOFlow's insulin pump products infringed Insulet's patent and granted a provisional injunction covering Italy and Sweden. The Milan Central Division subsequently ordered EOFlow to provide Insulet with complete information on the extent of its acts of infringement. EOFlow sought confidential treatment for that information, which the Milan Central Division refused, also ordering penalty payments of €150,000 for non-compliance with the provisional measures order. The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the penalty order on 4 February 2026. This appeal addressed the outstanding confidentiality question.
Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party may request that certain information in written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential, in particular, by making documents available to the public in redacted form and providing specific reasons for such confidentiality.
Rule 262A meanwhile provides that a party may make an application for an order that certain information contained in its pleadings or the collection and use of evidence in proceedings may be restricted or prohibited or that access to such information or evidence be restricted to specific persons.
EOFlow argued that information provided pursuant to the court's order had an implied procedural limitation and could only be used for the purposes of pursuing the patent infringement claim. The Court of Appeal rejected this, stating that no such implied limitation exists. The use of confidential information would only be restricted where the court issued a Rule 262A order. Since Insulet had received the information without any restriction, it was no longer a trade secret or other confidential information. The same principle also applied to information submitted during the first instance proceedings.
Parties should therefore proactively seek Rule 262A protection if they wish to restrict the use of confidential information, as failure to do so may lead to a loss of confidentiality status.
Public access to documents: Court of Appeal confirms requirements for requesting access to documents – Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva Portugal – UPC_CoA_9/2026 and Sumi Agro v Syngenta – UPC_CoA_10/2026
The Court of Appeal recently issued two decisions reiterating the need for precision when requesting public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) Rules of Procedure.
The court confirmed that any request for written pleadings and evidence must be specified "to the greatest extent possible" and cannot be made in terms "which would require the Court to search and select documents" based on criteria specified by the requesting party. General requests for access to "all exhibits" were rejected in both cases.
The court also issued a reminder that reasoned requests for documents should be directed to the relevant division which received the document at first instance, noting the separate responsibilities of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. This separation of responsibility ensures that decisions will be taken by a judge familiar with the case.
Finally, the court confirmed that there is no need to re-lodge documents originally lodged with the Court of First Instance on appeal, as this would mean members of the public could request access to the documents from both courts, resulting in duplication of work. The Court of Appeal will instead consult the file of the relevant proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Court of Appeal confirms duty of full and frank disclosure for ex parte evidence orders – Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock – UPC_CoA_3/2026
This case serves as a reminder that applicants seeking ex parte orders before the UPC must ensure that their initial applications are truthful, comprehensive and accurate. Omissions or distortions, even if capable of being addressed in later submissions, will not save an order that was improperly obtained.
Ecovacs applied for an ex parte evidence order against Roborock at the Düsseldorf Local Division. It sought to obtain samples of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners from a trade show. Ecovacs argued that the trade show represented a rare opportunity to seize evidence that would not otherwise be obtainable. The Local Division granted the order without hearing Roborock.
Roborock subsequently requested a review of the order. The Local Division revoked the order (save for certain confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions), finding that the factual submissions underpinning the application had been ambiguous and incomplete. It ordered Ecovacs to bear the costs of the inspection, including the expert's report. Ecovacs appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Given that an ex parte order is granted without affording the opposing party an opportunity to be heard, an applicant is under a duty of full and frank disclosure. This means it must bring to the court's attention any material fact known to it that might influence the court's decision whether to proceed without notice.
Ecovacs had failed to meet this standard. In its application, it had described Roborock as operating in Europe solely through affiliated logistics and distribution companies, with no European presence of its own. It presented the trade fair as the only opportunity to examine the goods. Yet in parallel proceedings, Ecovacs had asserted that Roborock sold the products directly to German customers through its Amazon web shop, and had even carried out a test purchase. The Court of Appeal agreed that these omissions and distortions were of central importance to the assessment of the original application.
The Court of Appeal further held that an applicant cannot retroactively justify an ex parte order by introducing new grounds at the review stage. Facts not included in the original application will be disregarded on review, and the existence of potentially valid grounds that were not initially raised cannot save an order that was improperly obtained.
Düsseldorf Local Division highlights potential consequences of publicising ongoing proceedings – Canon v Katun Germany – UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024
This case highlights the risks associated with publicising ongoing proceedings before the court has come to its decision. Parties before the UPC should exercise considerable caution before making any public statements about the merits of ongoing proceedings, as such statements can carry the risk of being used against them.
Canon enforced its unitary patent against the Katun group of companies at the UPC. The patent relates to how a toner supply container interacts with a corresponding receiver apparatus of a printer or copier, with the invention aimed at providing a smoother insertion and connection. Katun filed a counterclaim for revocation, but the UPC found the patent to be valid and directly infringed by Katun. It awarded Canon a number of remedies.
In particular, the court made an order on publicity of its decision. During the course of proceedings, Katun had stated on its website "Katun is confident the products it is selling and distributing for use in Canon applications are non-infringing", thereby creating what turned out to be a false impression that there had been no patent infringement.
Under Article 80 UPC Agreement, the court may permit publication of a decision following a two-step test: (1) does the claimant have a legitimate interest in publishing the decision? (2) does the defendant's interests outweigh this interest? Given that the defendant had chosen to publicise the proceedings on its website, it was necessary to correct the false impression created. Further, given that it was necessary to effect recalls, and the defendant had 8,000 customers worldwide, it was more feasible to effect the communication in this way than through private communication alone.
The court therefore permitted Canon to publicise the decision for one month across various public media and ordered Katun to publish the decision on its websites for one month.