1 of 26

The UPC

1

2 of 26

The UPC�Areas of technology �

May 2026

2

3 of 26

UPC case stats

2

To end April 2026

3

4 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�In total: over 640 actions filed*��Over 500 infringement actions*�Over 90 revocation actions*�Over 90 applications for provisional measures��Cases filed per month Jan 2024- April 2026�

May 2026

Source: Bird & Bird data – some actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

*counterclaims not counted

**more than one appeal may be filed against a CFI decision

4

5 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Areas of technology �

May 2026

Source: Bird & Bird data – some actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

*counterclaims not counted

5

6 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Decisions on the merits/final orders issued�

May 2026

Proceedings	Decisions issued	Pending
Revocation	32 decisions on the merits	38 pending
Infringement	97 decisions on the merits issued	278 pending – inc. 98 at LD Munich, 48 at Dusseldorf 45 at Manheim
Appeals	182 decisions, - mostly procedural - 29 substantive**	Over 100 still pending – inc. 23 relating to final decisions on the merits and 6 relating to final orders for provisional measures

Source: Bird & Bird data – some actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

*counterclaims not counted

**more than one appeal may be filed against a CFI decision

6

7 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Infringement actions – distribution

May 2026

522 infringement actions have been filed, regularly over 15 per month (peaking at 28)
Over 75% filed before German LDs, with The Hague, Paris and Milan LDs being the next popular.
Other Divisions have a very low percentage of the actions.

Source: Bird & Bird data – some actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

*counterclaims not counted

7

8 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Infringement actions: outcomes�

May 2026

97 first instance decisions on the merits: approx. 44% win rate
Outcomes from LD Munich, Hamburg, Paris and The Hague have been slightly more in favour of the Defendant
LD Dusseldorf's outcomes slightly favour plaintiffs

8

9 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Infringement actions: timelines��For those infringement actions that have progressed to a decision:�- hearings are usually around 14.5 months from filing, with decisions issuing ~1 month later. �- the time to decision is fairly consistent between many of the LDs; however, some quieter LDs appear faster�- many actions have not yet progressed to a decision in this 'typical' time frame

May 2026

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

9

10 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Revocation actions

May 2026

91 revocations actions have been filed, regularly between 2-4 per month (peaking at 7), 1/3 before Paris CD (CD determined by subject matter).

Source: Bird & Bird data – some actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

*counterclaims not counted

10

11 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Revocation actions: outcomes�

May 2026

Nearly 2 out of 3 revocation actions resulted in a decision that the patent is valid or valid as amended
Approx. 12.5 months to the oral hearing – decision within around a month after

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

11

12 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Provisional injunctions

May 2026

94 Applications for provisional injunctions have been filed, regularly between 2-5 per month.
Around 65% before German LDs, LD Mannheim less popular than LD The Hague and LD Milan

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous 2 months may not yet be public

12

13 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Provisional injunctions: outcomes

May 2026

At CFI, overall ~67% granted in the applicant's favour (includes anti-suit injunctions)
Of those not granted, main reason is lack of urgency but substantial numbers fail on likely infringement or likely validity

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous 2 months may not yet be public

13

14 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Preserving evidence/inspection: outcomes�

May 2026

UPC public data no longer categorises these, so difficult to analyse until a decision/order issues

24 known applications for preserving evidence/ 5 known applications for inspection
Nearly all decided in the applicant's favour – meaning a seizure/inspection occurs and a report sent to the court. Applicant must request access to it.

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

14

15 of 26

UPC: 35 months of operation�Appeals: outcomes ��So far, only a few appeals relating to decisions on the merits/final orders have concluded: �- for appeals relating to decisions on the merits 14/20 (70%) have upheld the decision�- for appeals relating to provisional measures, 6/16 (38%) have upheld the decision� (additionally, one decision overturned only in part)

May 2026

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

**more than one appeal may be filed against a CFI decision

15

16 of 26

Unitary Patent

3

16

17 of 26

UPC and Unitary Patent (UP)

Important difference between the two

The UPC is a court with territorial jurisdiction over 18 EU countries. First instance divisions are spread across them.
The UP is a 'new' (2023) patent available from the EPO. It covers the same 18 countries indivisibly – unlike traditional EPs which are granted as a 'bundle' of patents, one per country. A UP is selected during post-grant validation and can be part of a 'bundle' with EPs for the other EPC states (i.e. not covered by the UP territory).
The UPC's subject matter jurisdiction includes UPs (where it is exclusive) and traditional EPs that are not opted out from its jurisdiction by the proprietor. The latter jurisdiction is shared with national courts during a transitional period until 2030 (potentially extendable to 2037).
The difference between UPs and traditional EPs is very important for litigation strategy and portfolio management during the transitional period.
After the transitional period ends, the difference will be much less important as all litigation* based on EPs** in the participating UPC countries will take place in the UPC.

*Opt-outs filed before the end of the transitional period will continue to be effective meaning that some litigation of EPs in the national courts could continue for many years.

** It will still be possible to file patents in national patent offices. Those will be litigated in national courts. This is still of potential interest to international companies with sophisticated strategies and large prosecution budgets, e.g. to make use of the German "injunction gap" or to preclude the possibility of central revocation of their patents in the UPC.

May 2026

17

18 of 26

Unitary Patent (UP)

What has the UP uptake been like?

The uptake rate is the proportion of EPO patent applications that proceed to grant in a calendar year that have had a Request for Unitary Effect filed.

May 2026

To date:

In 2025:

Source: EPO

https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent

18

19 of 26

Unitary Patent (UP)

Companies filing Requests for Unitary Effect

May 2026

Source: EPO

https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent

19

20 of 26

Unitary Patent

What technology has the most UP uptake?

'Medical technology' appears the most common technology (with 3260 UPs)
'Communication technology' may be considered most common, with 4155 UPs (for 'Computer technology', 'Digital Communication', 'Audio-visual ' & 'Telecommunications')

May 2026

Source: EPO

https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent

20

21 of 26

Most prolific litigants

3

To end April 2026

21

22 of 26

UPC: parties filing most cases�Infringement plaintiffs (to 5 cases)�

May 2026

Panasonic – 19 cases filed
Huawei – 16 cases filed
Avago Technologies – 15 cases filed
Nokia – 13 cases filed
InterDigital – 11 cases
Ericsson – 10 cases filed
Abbott Diabetes Care – 9 cases filed
Dolby – 9 cases filed
Philips – 9 cases filed
NEC – 7 cases filed
Sanofi – 7 cases filed
Network System Technologies – 6 cases filed
Headwater Research – 6 cases filed
Sun Patent Trust – 6 cases filed
Qualcomm – 5 cases filed
GSK – 5 cases filed
Dexcom, Inc – 5 cases

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

22

23 of 26

UPC: parties filing most cases�Infringement defendants (to 5 cases)�

May 2026

Xiaomi – 12 cases
Samsung – 10 cases
OPPO – 8 cases
Disney – 8 cases
Amazon – 7 cases
ASUS / ASUSTek – 6 cases
HMD – 6 cases
Lenovo – 6 cases
TCL – 5 cases
Abbott Diabetes – 5 cases
Smartphone vendors (Galaxus, Infinix, etc) – 5 cases
Renault – 5 cases
Huawei – 5 cases
Roku – 5 cases

Qualcomm and Ericsson, who appeared on the previous slide listing plaintiffs, are defending 3 cases each.

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

23

24 of 26

UPC: parties filing most cases�Revocation plaintiffs (to 2 cases)�

May 2026

NJOY Netherlands – 9 cases filed
Bentley Motors – 3 cases filed
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine – 2 cases filed
Magna Automotive – 2 cases filed
UPM-Kymmene – 2 cases filed
Xingmai Innovation Technology – 2 cases filed
La Siddhi Consultancy – 2 cases filed
Dacia – 2 cases filed

Of the many parties who have filed 1 revocation action, Sanofi and Nokia stand out as having appeared on the previous slides for having filed multiple infringement cases.

Source: Bird & Bird data – actions lodged in previous months may not yet be public

24

25 of 26

The UPC�Areas of technology �

May 2026

25

26 of 26

Thank you

twobirds.com

Abu Dhabi ● Amsterdam ● Beijing ● Bratislava ● Brussels ● Budapest ● Casablanca ● Copenhagen ● Dubai ● Dublin ● Dusseldorf�● Frankfurt ● The Hague ● Hamburg ● Helsinki ● Hong Kong ● Lisbon ● London ● Lyon ● Madrid ● Milan ● Munich ● Paris�● Prague ● Riyadh ● Rome ● San Francisco ● Shanghai ● Shenzhen ● Singapore ● Stockholm ● Sydney ● Tokyo ● Warsaw

The information given in this document concerning technical legal or professional subject matter is for guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Always consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. Bird & Bird assumes no responsibility for such information contained in this document and disclaims all liability in respect of such information.

This document is confidential. Bird & Bird is, unless otherwise stated, the owner of copyright of this document and its contents. No part of this document may be published, distributed, extracted, re-utilised, or reproduced in any material form.

Bird & Bird is an international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses.

Bird & Bird LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with registered number OC340318 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) with SRA ID497264. Its registered office and principal place of business is at 12 New Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP. A list of members of Bird & Bird LLP and of any non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at that address.

26