Ex Parte Proceedings before the Unified Patent Court

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support, review, and constructive feedback provided by Andrea Perronace. The author also appreciates the support and review of the manuscript by Kim Finnilä and Triona Walshe.

1. Legal Background

Article 60(5) UPCAAgreement on a Unified Patent Court signed on 19 February 2013, as amended by decision of the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court of 26 June 2023 and Rule 197(1) and 212(1) RoPRules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court as adopted by decision of the Administrative Committee on 8 July 2022, amended by decision of the Administrative Committee on 4 November 2025 entry into force: 1 January 2026 set the substantive threshold for ex parte relief limiting such measures to situations of urgency or a risk that inter partes proceedings would frustrate the purpose of the measure and therefore be ineffective:

Measures shall be ordered … without the other party having been heard … where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the proprietor of the patent, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.“

Article 60 (6) and Rule 197 (2) and 212(2) RoP introduces a special procedural safeguard for the respondent:

“Where measures are ordered … without the other party in the case having been heard, the parties affected shall be given notice, without delay and at the latest immediately after the execution of the measures.”

These provisions emphasize the exceptional nature of ex parte proceedings under the UPC. Although the Court may derogate from the audi alteram partem principle in narrowly defined circumstances, this is counterbalanced by immediate notification.

Ex parte proceedings are therefore not conceived as an autonomous procedural regime, but as an exceptional procedural form within the broader system of provisional measures, subject to strict substantive and procedural constraints.The above mentioned provisions in the UPC Agreement correspond to Articles 7(1) and 9(4) of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Measures Allowing Ex Parte Proceedings

Under the UPC framework, ex parte relief may be granted in three categories of proceedings:

• Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises (Article 60 UPCA; Rules 192-199 RoP);
• Freezing orders (Article 61 UPCA; Rule 200 RoP); and
• Provisional and protective measures (Article 62 UPCA; Rules 205-213 RoP)

Although anti‑anti‑suit injunctions (AASIs) are not expressly mentioned in the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure, UPC case law has consistently qualified such relief as falling within Article 62(1) UPCA. In Nokia v. Sunmi case https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2025-02-19%20LD%20Munich%20Order%20UPC_CFI_112-2025%20ACT_7300-2025_anonymized.pdf, UPC_CFI_112/2025, the Munich Local Division held that an anti‑suit injunction constitutes an interference with the substance of the patent as a property right by preventing patentees from litigating before the UPC. The Division therefore characterized the pursuit or enforcement of an ASI as an actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Article 62(1) UPCA. On that basis, ex parte provisional measures were considered justified in order to prevent irreparable harm and to safeguard the patentee’s right to effective judicial protection.

Across all three categories, the case law identifies a series of cumulative requirements; however, the Divisions do not apply these requirements uniformly but rather calibrate their relative weight in light of the specific nature of the measure at issue.

In all three categories there must be a risk of irreparable or serious harm. For evidence preservation or inspection, the concern is that the alleged infringer could destroy or alter relevant evidence. In the context of freezing orders, this typically relates to the risk that the debtor might transfer or conceal assets. In the case of provisional measures, the risk often lies in the acceleration of sales or the continuation of allegedly infringing activities before an order could be issued inter partes. In anti‑anti‑suit injunction cases, the harm lies in the risk that foreign proceedings or measures may interfere with the UPC’s ability to hear the case and may prevent the claimant from effectively enforcing its rights before the court.

Prior warning of the defendant must be likely to defeat the purpose of the measure. This element is central to justifying the departure from the audi alteram partem principle.

Given the extraordinary character of ex parte relief, Local Divisions apply a certain threshold for assessing demonstrable risk, also depending on the case type, typically requiring a strong prima facie case on infringement and validity, a careful proportionality assessment, and detailed factual and legal substantiation.

Applicants are generally required to provide security or guarantees, reflecting the potential financial consequences of measures ordered without hearing the other party.

Finally, even where relief is granted ex parte, the UPC framework remains aligned with international and EU standards, notably Article 50 TRIPSAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (as amended on 23 January 2017) and the Enforcement DirectiveDIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/48/corrigendum/2004-06-02/oj by ensuring prompt notification, access to review or appeal, and the possibility of compensation if the measures are ultimately found to be unjustified (Rule 212(3). 197 (3) and (4) RoP).

Statistics

A review of the UPC’s case law to date confirms that ex parte proceedings remain exceptional, although distinct patterns emerge across the various categories of interim measures depending on the type of relief sought.

Ex parte relief is most frequently granted in the context of measures to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, where 20 of the 23 decisions rendered until end of 2025 were issued without prior hearing, reflecting the inherent risk that advance notice would enable the destruction, concealment, or alteration of evidence. Within this group, only one application was refused, indicating a consistently high rate of success for such measures in UPC practice.

By contrast, no publicly available decision currently confirms the grant of a freezing order ex parte, leaving this category largely unexplored in UPC practice.

Ex parte proceedings are significantly less common with respect to provisional and protective measures. Out of approximately 80 preliminary injunction proceedings initiated since the establishment of the Unified Patent Court, only 10 have proceeded without a prior hearing of the defendant. Of these 10 cases, 6 were granted at first instance. In addition, 4 ex parte applications – all granted – for anti‑anti‑suit injunctions have been reported.

In the chart, we marked in blue the cases that were immediately concluded by a granting order and marked in red those cases in which the outcome and the course of the decisions were more complicated. Accordingly, the five decisions (marked in red) include rejected cases, as well as cases in which a granting order was overturned by a decision of the Court of Appeal, or where seizure and delivery up (Article 62(3)) were ordered instead of the requested injunction (Article 62(1)).

Case law: Measures to Preserve Evidence and Inspect Premises

To the best of our knowledge, Ecovacs v. Roborock https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/Final%20order%203-2026%20signed-1.pdf, UPC_CFI_834/2025, UPC_CoA_3/2026, is the only case to date in UPC practice on evidence‑preservation measures in which an ex parte inspection and seizure order was later overturned on review and confirmed on appeal. The UPC Court of Appeal upheld the revocation of an ex parte inspection order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in relation to alleged infringement of EP 3 808 512, following an inspection carried out at Roborock’s stand at the IFA 2025 trade fair. The inspection order was granted on the basis that the trade fair allegedly represented the sole opportunity to secure evidence and that there was a risk of evidence loss through removal or software modification of the exhibited products.

On review, the Local Division revoked the order with ex tunc effect, save for the confidentiality measures, finding that Ecovacs had breached its heightened duty of full and accurate disclosure of material facts under Rule 192.3 RoP by omitting that the contested products were already sold directly to European customers via Amazon, allowing alternative means of evidence collection.

Later this decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The CoA stipulated that measures to preserve evidence without hearing the other party raise issues of due process. This incorporates a duty, characterized as a “heightened requirement”, obliges applicants to disclose all material facts, including those that may argue against the grant of the requested measure. In the present case, Ecovacs had not informed the court that the contested products were already being sold directly via Amazon, a circumstance undermined the asserted necessity of an ex parte inspection at the trade fair. The court further made clear that such omissions cannot be compensated for or circumvented by later submissions once the ex parte order has been granted.

The decision demonstrates that even in trade‑fair contexts, ex parte inspection orders are vulnerable to retroactive annulment where applicants do not transparently address the existence of alternative evidence‑gathering options, reaffirming the central role of Rule 192.3 RoP in UPC practice.

A further and comprehensive examination of the relevant ex parte decisions illustrates how the UPC has applied the prima facie evidentiary threshold set out in Article 60(1) UPCA, which requires the applicant to present “reasonably available evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed.” While UPC practice generally reflects a pragmatic and flexible approach, UPC_CFI_142/2025 https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/70985 stands out as the only decision in which the Mannheim Local Division adopted a comparatively strict standard for substantiating infringement at the evidence‑preservation stage.

The Local Division emphasized that evidence‑preservation measures cannot be ordered on the basis of mere allegations or abstract plausibility; rather, the applicant must submit concrete facts showing that infringement is more likely than not on the circumstances of the case. Although the applicant demonstrated that certain claim features were plausibly met, the Local Division identified material gaps with respect to other decisive features of the asserted claim combination. In particular, where the claimed technical result could be achieved through multiple alternative implementations, the applicant did not provide factual indications that the defendant was using the specific technical solution protected by the patent, nor did it explain why alternative, non‑infringing solutions could be excluded. The expert opinion submitted by the applicant merely stated that infringement could only be confirmed through further testing, without establishing that the patented solution was likely implemented in practice.

The Mannheim LD further noted that the application relied on assumptions rather than substantiated technical indicators, and that certain conclusions were presented as “highly probable” without explaining the underlying factual basis.

By contrast, other Local Divisions, including those in Milan, Paris, Düsseldorf in cases such as Oerlikon v. Bhagat https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/B5E32BB630CDDA39FA88739E346CDC29_it.pdf, UPC_CFI_241/2023, C‑Kore System Limited v. Novawell https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/2023-11-14%20LD%20Paris%20UPC_CFI_397-2023%20ORD_587064%20App_583867%20-%20anonymized.pdf, UPC_CFI_397/2023, Prinoth SpA v. Xelom Srl https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2025-03-18%20LD%20Milan%20Final%20Order_UPC_CFI_127-2025%20anonymized.pdf.pdf, UPC_CFI_127/2025, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v. Steros GPA Innovative https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2025-09-22%20Order%20Inspection_final_redacted_signed_all.pdf, UPC_CFI_885/2025, have accepted a lower evidentiary threshold, allowing plausibility arguments or circumstantial indicators to suffice. In these cases, materials such as product brochures, trade‑fair documentation, photographs, and even LinkedIn posts published by the defendants were considered adequate to support a prima facie finding that the patent had been infringed or was about to be infringed.

Overall, the case law based on Art. 60 UPCA is being used with increasing frequency within the UPC system. A significant part of the UPC territory has now been tested in practice, including proceedings before the Local Divisions in Munich, Copenhagen, The Hague, Paris, Milan, Brussels, and Mannheim. Decisions are typically rendered swiftly, often within days or a few weeks, and the majority of cases are decided in ex parte proceedings.

The first‑instance case law has been further clarified by the Court of Appeal in Tiru v. Valinea https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/ORDER_MAGUIN%20v%20TIRU_2025-07-15_EN_version.pdf, UPC_CoA_327/2025, which set out the key standards for ex parte evidence‑preservation measures. The Court confirmed that such measures are intended to be prompt and effective, reflecting their role in securing evidence before it can be lost. It identified three decisive elements for granting such orders ex parte: the urgency of the action, a credible risk that the evidence would be destroyed or otherwise become unavailable if notice were given and well‑founded reasons for not hearing the defendant.

The Court distinguished evidence‑preservation measures from provisional and protective measures by applying different legal standards. In seizure and inspection proceedings, urgency is not an independent requirement for obtaining the measure itself, but rather a factor relevant to whether the order may be granted ex parte. As long as there is a substantiated suspicion of infringement, the need to gather evidence remains justified throughout the life of the patent.

The Court of Appeal also made clear that, unlike in preliminary injunction proceedings, it is not normally necessary to assess patent validity at the evidence‑preservation stage. A presumption of validity is sufficient, unless there are concrete indications to the contrary, such as a prior revocation decision by the EPO or a national court.

Case law: Provisional and Protective Measures

In Tiru v. Valinea, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that applications for provisional measures are subject to a legal standard distinct from that applied under Article 60 UPCA. Urgency constitutes an explicit and autonomous requirement, therefore the Court must take into account any unreasonable delay pursuant to Rule 211(4) RoP, noting that applications relating to Art. 62 UPCA are generally expected to be filed within one to two months from the time the applicant became, or should have become, aware of the alleged infringement.

Beyond urgency, the Court of Appeal also articulated heightened requirements concerning the assessment of infringement and validity. Unlike in proceedings under Article 60 UPCA, a mere prima facie showing is insufficient. Instead, the applicant must substantiate, with an appropriate level of detail and supporting evidence, that the patent is valid and infringed with a sufficient degree of certainty. This reflects the need to strike a careful balance between the interests of the patent proprietor and the potentially severe consequences of interim measures for the alleged infringer.

The above decision of the CoA is reflected in the practice. However ex parte preliminary injunctions remain rare under the UPC, with only 10 such decisions to date, the available decisions offer useful insight into the Court’s approach.

Ex parte preliminary injunctions granted at first instance

MyStromer v. Revolt Zycling https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/2023-06-22%20LD%20D%C3%BCsseldorf%20UPC_CFI_177-2023%20ORD_526778-2023%20ACT_525740-2023%20anonymized%20Translation.pdf, UPC_CFI_177/2023, was the first ex parte preliminary‑injunction case before the Unified Patent Court and arose from the respondent’s active marketing of allegedly infringing speed pedelecs at the EuroBike 2023 trade fair. The court considered that the trade‑fair context created an immediate enforcement risk that could not be neutralised through inter partes proceedings without rendering interim relief ineffective. Urgency was therefore inherent in the factual situation, and the presence of a protective letter did not prevent the grant of ex parte relief, as defendant has not denied that the contested embodiment infringes the subject matter of the patent. Moreover, on the basis of the protective letter the court could identify that the combination structure falls into the scope of the patent. The Court pointed that trade‑fair exposure and imminent market entry constitute recurring scenarios in which ex parte measures may be considered appropriate.

This approach was subsequently authoritatively consolidated in the Mammut v. Ortovox https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/UPC_CoA182-2024%20Anordnung%20im%20Verfahren%20auf%20%C3%9Cberpr%C3%BCfung%20der%20Anordnung%20einstweiliger%20Massnahmen_eng-FINAL%20VERSION_EN.pdf, UPC_CoA_182/2024, proceedings. After an ex parte preliminary injunction was granted at first instance by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the case proceeded through review and appeal, culminating in a detailed judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal clarified that irreparable harm is not a mandatory prerequisite for interim relief. Instead, Articles 62(2) UPCA and Rule 211(3) RoP require a structured balancing of the parties’ interests, taking into account the potential harm resulting from both the grant and the refusal of the measures. The Court confirmed that this balancing exercise applies equally in ex parte proceedings, notwithstanding the absence of the defendant’s submissions at first instance. With respect to urgency, the Court of Appeal clarified that the relevant time for calculating the delay within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP is the day on which the applicant has, or should have had, such knowledge of the infringement as would enable it to file a promising application for provisional measures. In this case the applicant could only form a reliable view on infringement upon inspection of the trade‑fair product, so no unreasonable delay existed. According to CoA the question of when an unreasonably long delay exists depends on the circumstances of the individual case, so a rigid deadline to determine the actual length of the urgency period was declined by the Court.

Later granted cases largely confirm this line of authority. In Cardo Systems v. Asmax https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/ORD_59913_2024_ACT_59213_2024_UPC_CFI_643_2024_Signed%20%285%29.pdf,UPC_CFI_643/2024, the Milan Local Division granted an ex parte injunction shortly before EICMA 2024, relying on extreme urgency, detailed infringement evidence, and a sufficiently substantiated showing of validity. Similarly, in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2024-09-09%20LD%20Hamburg%20UPC_CFI_516-2024%20ACT_50855-2024%20anonymzied.pdf, UPC_CFI_516/2024, the Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction within one day in connection with IFA 2024, placing decisive weight on the respondent’s pre‑litigation conduct and the absence of any plausible non‑infringement defense. Both decisions illustrate the application of the MyStromer and Mammut principles to comparable factual settings.

Further ex parte preliminary injunctions with divergent procedural courses

Grant order overturned by CoA decision:

In Insulet v. EOFLOW https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/42923986C15406AB1ED827111B5AB2F1_en.pdf and https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/6B367A528DF365AD114FE21C4200AEE0_en.pdf case, CFI 400/2024, UPC_CFI_597/2024, Insulet filed for two ex parte preliminary injunctions before Milan Central Division and Milan Local Division against South Korean manufacturer, EOFLOW and the main distributor of the GlucoMen Day Pump, Meriani, requesting that the Divisions order EOFLOW to cease manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, or possessing the fluid delivery device EOPatch. Both Divisions rejected the preliminary injunction request, because the substantive requirements of Rule 211 RoP were not met. In particular, serious validity concerns arose from prior art that cast doubt on novelty and a revocation action was already pending on the merits. In these circumstances, the Divisions concluded that granting ex parte interim relief would undermine procedural fairness. The decisions confirm that, even where urgency is alleged, substantial doubts as to patent validity are decisive and will bar ex parte relief.

However, the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal (CoA_768_24/APL_64374/24 https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/116116). The CoA disagreed with the Milan Central Division that the patent was likely invalid for lack of novelty. The CoA emphasized that claim construction is a matter of law, and held that the judicial task of interpreting a patent claim cannot be acritically taken from expert reports filed by the parties, however, must be undertaken independently by the court itself.

The order further provides guidance on preliminary‑injunction requirements beyond validity, notably on the likelihood of continued infringement under Article 62(1) UPCA, despite the settlement between Insulet and Menarini. (Meriani is the principal European distributor of the EOPatch.) The CoA held that the settlement did not negate the risk of ongoing infringement by EOFlow, stressing that such risk generally arises from prior infringement unless the infringer issues a cease‑and‑desist declaration with an adequate penalty. EOFlow had not issued such a declaration, therefore could not be excluded that EOFlow might itself distribute the contested embodiments. Finally, the CoA rejected arguments based on patients’ interests, finding that patients could switch to the Omnipod 5 and that any advantages of the EOPatch were primarily matters of convenience, which did not tip the overall balance of interests in favour of EOFlow.

Rejection of application for ex parte measures

In Biolitec v. Lightguide https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/ORDER_BIOLITEC%20v%20LIGHTGUIDE%20OPTICS_2025_02_24_EN.pdf, UPC_CoA_540/2024, both the Düsseldorf Local Division and the Court of Appeal rejected an application for ex parte provisional measures. The courts held that provisional measure under Article 62 UPCA is available only where, having regard to the time factor and the balance of interests, proceedings on the merits cannot be awaited. In that case, the requested measures would have disrupted a long‑established market status quo, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that alleged harm – such as loss of market share, stock effects, tenders or price erosion – could not be adequately remedied in main proceedings. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Order of seizure and delivery up (Art 62.3) instead of the requested injunction (Art. 62.1)

In Pirelli Tyre v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/59754_2024%20-%20pirelli%20tyre%20spa%20-%20sichuan%20yuanxing%20rubber%20co%20ltd%20signed%20_EN.pdf https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/59764_2024_Pirelli%20inaudita%205%20november%20signed%20AZ%20_EN_final.pdf, UPC CFI NO. 649/2024 and 650/2024, in two parallel proceedings Pirelli applied for a preliminary injunction before the Milan Local Division to prevent the exhibition and sale of allegedly infringing motorcycle tyres at EICMA (the leading global motorcycle trade fair) by Tianjin Kingtyre Group and its German subsidiary, Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber (Helios). The applications were prompted by online advertising material suggesting that specific products would be displayed at the event. Both defendants had secured exhibition stands in Milan, raising the risk of infringing acts occurring on Italian territory and of the products entering commercial channels. The LD declined to grant ex parte provisional injunctions, indicating that the evidentiary threshold required under Article 62(1) UPCA had not been met. However, it accepted that the circumstances were extremely urgent and that less intrusive measures were appropriate. The applications were therefore limited to seizure of the allegedly infringing goods under Art. 62.3. The Milan LD presumed the relevant two patents valid, both had been granted and maintained in multiple jurisdictions without challenge. On infringement, Pirelli submitted expert reports comparing the patent claims with photographic evidence of the contested tyres. While this evidence was insufficient to justify an ex parte injunction, it was considered adequate to establish a suspicion of infringement.

While the Division accepted that the exhibition of allegedly infringing tyres created a real and imminent risk of market entry, it was not persuaded that the high threshold for an ex parte preliminary injunction had been met. A central consideration was proportionality: the Milan Division found that seizure and delivery‑up at the trade fair were sufficient to neutralize the immediate risk, whereas an ex parte preliminary injunction would have constituted a broader interference with the defendants’ commercial activity than was strictly necessary on the available record.

Taken together, this body of case law confirms that ex parte preliminary injunctions remain rare under the UPC, while trade‑fair‑driven urgency constitutes the most compelling factual trigger for interim relief. Following Tiru v. Valinea, the Divisions of the UPC consistently apply a high and structured threshold, reserving ex parte injunctions for cases where urgency, infringement, validity and proportionality clearly converge. At the same time, the emerging practice shows a pragmatic willingness to deploy graduated provisional measures, such as seizure and delivery‑up (Art 62.3 UPCA), where injunction (Art. 62.1 UPCA) would be disproportionate. For practitioners, these decisions underscore the importance of precise timing, robust evidentiary substantiation, and a careful assessment of whether the exceptional remedy of ex parte relief can genuinely be justified.

Additional Ex Parte Decisions on Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions under the UPC Framework

Anti‑suit injunctions (ASIs) are a strategic instrument aimed at managing parallel proceedings and limiting litigation exposure in complex, multi‑jurisdictional SEP (Standard Essential Patents) disputes. In practice, they are predominantly employed by SEP implementers to restrain SEP holders from pursuing injunctive relief in fast‑moving or enforcement‑friendly jurisdictions, thereby seeking to consolidate the dispute in a single forum perceived as more favorable for determining global licensing terms.

The UPC has reacted to this practice by developing an assertive regime of anti‑anti‑suit injunctions (AASIs), grounded in EU constitutional principles and its jurisdictional mandate under the UPCA.

The first AASI application was filed and granted related to Avago Technologies v. Realtek https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2024-12-09%20-LD%20Munich%20UPC_CFI_755-2024%20ORD_64861-2024%20ACT_63549%20anonymized.pdf, UPC_CFI_755/2024, case on 9 December 2024. The operative part of the order prohibits Realtek from continuing the U.S. proceedings insofar as they sought to (i) restrain Avago from pursuing patent infringement actions before the UPC and (ii) enforce any resulting injunctions obtained in Germany. The Court ordered the withdrawal of the U.S. ASI/AEI applications, imposed coercive fines for non‑compliance, and made enforcement conditional on Avago providing security (EUR 500,000). Ex parte relief was substantiated by the presence of urgency and a demonstrable risk of imminent procedural harm.

Huawei v. Netgear https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2024-12-11%20ACT_65376-2024%20UPC_CFI_791-2024%20AASI%20AEI%20redacted.pdf, UPC_CFI_791/2024, followed the same doctrinal line as Avago v. Realtek. Munich LD granted on the day of filing ex parte anti‑anti‑suit relief to prevent Netgear’s application be granted for an anti‑suit injunction in the US. Extreme urgency, risk of serious and imminent procedural harm, and an immediate threat to UPC jurisdiction was identified by the Court. Applying a balance‑of‑interests test, the Court found that Huawei would suffer significant and disproportionate harm if the U.S. anti‑suit application were allowed to proceed, whereas the prejudice to Netgear resulting from withdrawal would be comparatively minor. Netgear was therefore ordered to withdraw its U.S. application within 24 hours, subject to Huawei providing a security deposit of EUR 3 million within 20 days. The proceedings were subsequently terminated following a settlement and joint withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 RoP.

In Nokia v. Sunmi https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2025-02-19%20LD%20Munich%20Order%20UPC_CFI_112-2025%20ACT_7300-2025_anonymized.pdf, UPC_CFI_112/2025, the Munich LD -again- granted ex parte AASI to block a threatened Chinese ASI by Sunmi, holding that the credible risk of such an application, in the context of parallel FRAND rate‑setting proceedings, was sufficient to justify immediate intervention under Article 62 UPCA. Although an ASI had not yet been filed, the Court held that the threat alone was sufficient: in ASI cases, the infringing act lies in the application for the ASI, and – taking into consideration the fact that Chinese ASIs can be granted quickly and ex parte – even the credible prospect of such an application can constitute a threatened violation of the patent holder Nokia’s property and procedural rights.

Interdigital v Amazon https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2025-11-27%20LD%20Mannheim%20order%20UPC_CFI_936_2025%20anonymized.pdf, UPC_CFI_936/2025, was decided on the same principles by the Mannheim LD in relation to threatened UK interim license proceedings: The Court held that such foreign measures would, in practice, deprive the SEP holder of access to injunctive relief before the UPC and therefore constitute an unlawful interference with the fundamental right to effective patent enforcement. Applying a balance‑of‑interests test, the Court found that the anticipated harm to InterDigital outweighed any prejudice to Amazon and characterized the threatened foreign strategy as vexatious or oppressive.

The UPC’s approach to ex parte anti‑anti‑suit injunctions is grounded in a combination of constitutional protection and jurisdictional self-defense. Relying on Articles 17(2) and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf , the Court treats access to patent enforcement and effective judicial protection as fundamental rights, such that attempts to restrain UPC proceedings through foreign measures are prima facie incompatible with EU public policy.

On this basis, the UPC has characterized the pursuit of foreign anti‑suit relief aimed at halting UPC litigation as unlawful interference with patent rights, and in certain circumstances as conduct amounting to infringement in itself. This approach brings AASI applications within the Court’s substantive jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, rather than framing them as mere conflicts of international comity.

Taken together, the four decisions illustrate the UPC’s readiness to intervene ex parte where foreign proceedings – whether already initiated or credibly threatened – risk neutralizing patent enforcement before the Court. In all cases, the LDs placed decisive weight on urgency, applied a proportionality‑based balancing of interests, and framed their intervention as necessary to safeguard the effectiveness of UPC proceedings and the Court’s jurisdiction in global SEP litigation.

Procedurally, anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASIs) may be sought under Article 62 UPCA, read in conjunction with Rules 211 and 212 RoP, which confer broad discretion on the Court when ordering provisional measures. The grant of an AASI does not require a strict showing of irreparable harm. Instead, the decisive criterion is a weighing of the parties’ respective interests, combined with the need to preserve the practical effectiveness of UPC proceedings. Where delay would allow foreign measures to take effect and undermine UPC enforcement, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to grant relief ex parte and with exceptional speed.

Conclusion

Decisions on evidence preservation and inspection measures have been predominantly favorable to patent proprietors indicating that the UPC applies a comparatively accessible threshold for such measures, notwithstanding their potentially far-reaching effects, and confirms their effectiveness in securing litigation-ready evidence at an early stage of proceedings.

At the same time, the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ecovacs v. Roborock underscores that this accessibility is counterbalanced by a heightened duty of full and accurate disclosure. Applicants must transparently address the availability of alternative means of obtaining evidence, failing which even granted ex parte measures risk retroactive revocation.

Proceedings under Article 60 UPCA are gaining momentum across the UPC, and the expanding body of decisions is contributing to an increasingly predictable procedural framework for ex parte evidence gathering.

Case law on provisional and protective measures confirms that ex parte preliminary injunctions remain exceptional. Trade‑fair‑driven urgency continues to constitute the most compelling factual trigger, but following Tiru v. Valinea, Divisions consistently apply a high and structured threshold, requiring the convergence of urgency, infringement, validity and proportionality. Where this threshold is not met, the UPC has shown a pragmatic willingness to deploy graduated measures, such as seizure and delivery‑up, instead of full injunctive relief.

Finally, in the context of anti‑anti‑suit injunctions, the UPC’s decisions demonstrate a clear readiness to intervene ex parte where foreign proceedings – whether initiated or credibly threatened – risk neutralizing patent enforcement before the Court. Anchored in constitutional and jurisdictional reasoning, these cases confirm the UPC’s determination to safeguard both its authority and the effective enforcement of SEPs.

Comments