This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the calendar week of April 13, 2026. It is one of our longest UPC Roundups to date.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
11. Around the court
11.1 Brazil court cites UPC ruling, referencing ip fray, in Panasonic v. HMD PI decision
A Brazilian court has granted Panasonic a PI against HMD Global in a dispute over standard-essential patents (SEPs) covering Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) technology, reinforcing a growing international consensus on FRAND licensing. Judge Victor Agustin Jaccoud Diz Torres of Rio de Janeiro’s 6th Business Court held that Panasonic met its FRAND obligation by directing HMD to the AAC patent pool administered by Via Licensing Alliance, rejecting the need for a bilateral license offer. Notably, the judgment explicitly referenced ip fray in a footnote, citing its coverage of the Munich LD decision:
The ruling comes as HMD has effectively exited the Brazilian market following earlier injunctions, limiting immediate commercial impact but raising the stakes for parallel disputes elsewhere. By relying on European precedents from Dusseldorf, Munich, and the UPC, the Brazilian court signals a clear alignment with established FRAND principles while positioning Brazil as an increasingly relevant forum in the global SEP litigation landscape.
11.2 Unitary Patent System nears year three, early confidence looks justified
Interesting signals are emerging around the uptake of the Unitary Patent system as it nears its third year (link to LinkedIn post), suggesting that early confidence in its success was not misplaced. Even before its launch, major industry players such as Ericsson viewed the system as a practical and efficient tool, committing to regular use despite structural gaps like the absence of the UK and other non-participating countries. Concerns over the risk of central revocation did little to dampen enthusiasm, with proponents emphasizing a focus on patent quality. As the system matures, the conversation is now shifting toward whether to extend the transitional period, a debate that is already gaining traction and is likely to influence the system’s future trajectory.
11.3 UPC Paris judges outline ground rules for patent injunctions at practitioner forum
(link to UPC LinkedIn post)
At a quarterly “Rencontres de la JUB” session held April 14, 2026, at the Commercial Court of Paris, judges from the Paris LD outlined key considerations for obtaining provisional measures, including PIs, in patent disputes. Presiding Judge Camille Lignières and Judge Carine Gillet, walked practitioners through the court’s approach to urgency, the required level of certainty regarding patent validity and alleged infringement, the balance of interests, and the necessity of the requested measures. Organized by the Association of European Patent Practitioners and the Association des Avocats en Propriété Industrielle, the quarterly meetings aim to deepen practitioners’ understanding of UPC procedure and provide updates on evolving case law.
11.4 UPC statistics reflect rising March caseload, with German LDs leading as always
March marked a clear rebound in activity at the UPC, with 22 new infringement actions filed, outpacing the combined total of January and February, and three new applications for provisional measures. German local divisions continued to dominate the docket in the first quarter, led by Dusseldorf, Mannheim, Munich, and Hamburg, collectively accounting for roughly 69% of all filings, a concentration that is likely to intensify ongoing debates over forum distribution. At the same time, capacity pressures are beginning to show: delays in Munich appear to be influencing litigant behavior, while Mannheim is also seeing a growing caseload relative to its bandwidth. Rather than dispersing filings more evenly across Europe, parties seem inclined to shift between German venues or even revert to national courts such as the Munich I Regional Court, which still handles more infringement cases than the entire UPC. Beyond Europe, jurisdictions like Rio de Janeiro are also seeing a steady stream of patent activity, underscoring an increasingly dynamic and competitive global litigation landscape.
11.5 Majority of global economy aligns with UPC on overreach as UK pushes global FRAND role
The article is an opinion piece, not a judicial order, addressing ongoing disputes over global FRAND licensing and jurisdictional overreach. It references key proceedings, including Samsung v. ZTE before the High Court of England and Wales, Tesla v. InterDigital & Avanci before the UK Supreme Court, and an appeal in Amazon v. InterDigital before the CoA. It highlights China’s recent regulations aimed at curbing enforcement of foreign judgments that conflict with its domestic law, framing them as a response to courts, particularly in the UK, asserting authority to set global FRAND terms.