The most recent Unified Patent Court statistics report, covering cases filed from June 2023 to May 2025, reveals a surprising development in the Court of First Instance's caseload. Contrary to early industry predictions, the UPC is hearing a significant number of cases in life sciences and chemistry—far more than the cautious initial reception from these sectors might have suggested.
Life sciences and chemistry: More active than expected
When the UPC opened its doors in June 2023, there was considerable nervousness within the pharmaceutical and speciality chemical industries about engaging with the new court system. Industry observers predicted that these sectors would adopt a "wait and see" approach, allowing the court to establish its procedures and precedents before committing to UPC proceedings. The statistics tell a different story. While mechanical and electronic patent cases may have dominated the headlines during the UPC's first two years of operation, patents in pharmaceuticals and chemistry have generated substantial litigation activity. The numbers suggest that the initial industry caution was perhaps overstated, with life sciences and chemistry companies increasingly willing to test the waters of the UPC system.
In the latest report from the UPC for the number of cases to 31 May 2025 since the court opened in 2023, the data shows the allocation of cases according to the first International Patent Classification (IPC) class of the patent in suit. IPC classes A and C generally relate to inventions in the fields of medicines, life sciences and speciality chemicals, whereas classes G and H relate to mechanical or electrical inventions.
The data for Class A patents shows 63 cases for infringement only, 39 cases for infringement with a counterclaim for revocation and 26 cases for revocation only. For Class C patents, there are 44 cases for infringement only, 19 cases for infringement with a counterclaim for revocation and 7 cases for revocation only.
For Class G patents, 51 cases for infringement only, 30 cases for infringement with a counterclaim for revocation and 5 cases for revocation only. For Class H patents, 123 cases for infringement only, 72 cases for infringement with a counterclaim for revocation and 14 cases for revocation only.
In summary, while the numbers of cases that have Classes A and C as the first IPC class are lower than those in Classes G and H, there do seem to be respectable number of cases.
This shift is particularly noteworthy given the high stakes typically involved in pharmaceutical and speciality chemical patent disputes, where patent validity and infringement decisions can have profound commercial implications for major product portfolios. Typically, also there are fewer patents filed in the pharmaceutical and chemical sectors so each patent covering a product assumes a greater importance than perhaps in the telecom sector.
Central division allocation and its implications
The subject matter classification of cases carries practical significance beyond mere statistical interest, as it determines the allocation of cases within the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The UPC's geographic distribution system allocates cases based on International Patent Classification categories:
-
Milan handles patents classified under category (A) for "human necessities," primarily pharmaceuticals (excluding supplementary protection certificate matters)
-
Munich addresses patents in classifications (C) relating to chemistry and metallurgy (without SPCs), and (F) relating to mechanical engineering
-
Paris manages the remaining classes (B), (D), (E), (G) for physics and (H) for electricity, as well as all SPC-related matters
The Central Division serves as the relevant division for revocation actions where there is no concurrent infringement claim filed, making the classification system a crucial factor in forum selection and case strategy.
Case distribution patterns emerging
The statistical breakdown reveals interesting patterns in how parties are utilising the UPC system. The data shows that the number of cases in Classes A and C—covering pharmaceuticals and chemistry respectively—is more substantial than many industry observers initially anticipated. While the overall number of actions in pharmaceutical and chemistry fields remains lower than those in traditional "tech" classifications, the level of activity demonstrates that the UPC is evolving beyond its initial perception as primarily a telecommunications court. The increasing engagement from life sciences and chemistry sectors suggests growing confidence in the court's ability to handle complex technical matters across diverse fields.
Geographic and linguistic trends
The case distribution data reveals significant variations in activity across different UPC divisions. The Paris Central Division leads substantially in caseload, handling a disproportionate share of cases compared to the other Central Division seats. Among the Local Divisions, Munich emerges as the most active, followed by Düsseldorf, indicating strong regional preferences for certain types of patent disputes. Equally significant is the linguistic trend within UPC proceedings. English has become the dominant language of proceedings, with 55% of cases to May 2025 conducted in English. This linguistic preference may reflect the international nature of many patent disputes and the global reach of the technologies involved, but it also suggests that the UPC is successfully positioning itself as a truly European forum rather than being constrained by national linguistic boundaries.
Strategic implications for patent holders
These developments have important implications for patent strategy in the pharmaceutical and chemical sectors:
-
Forum Selection Considerations: The increasing activity in Milan and Munich Central Divisions suggests that patent holders in these sectors are finding the UPC's centralised approach attractive, despite initial reservations about forum shopping and jurisdictional complexity.
-
Litigation Strategy Evolution: The willingness of pharmaceutical and chemical companies to engage with the UPC indicates growing confidence in the court's technical expertise and procedural efficiency. This trend may accelerate as the court establishes more precedents in these fields.
-
Language Strategy: The predominance of English proceedings may influence how companies approach their UPC litigation strategies, particularly in terms of legal representation and document preparation.
Looking forward: Implications for practice
The statistics suggest that the UPC is successfully establishing itself as a viable forum for complex patent disputes across diverse technical fields. For patent practitioners, this development necessitates a more nuanced understanding of the UPC's capabilities and procedures, particularly in pharmaceutical and chemical cases where technical complexity is often coupled with significant commercial stakes. The statistics also point to the need for parties to focus also on developing appropriate strategies for any co-pending oppositions at the European Patent Office (EPO) which means involving European Patent Attorneys also as part of any successful litigation team. The increasing engagement from traditionally cautious pharmaceutical and speciality chemical sectors indicates that the UPC's early performance has been sufficiently impressive to overcome initial industry reservations. This trend is likely to continue as the court builds its reputation and establishes more comprehensive case law across different technical domains.
The practical takeaway: Patent holders in pharmaceutical and speciality chemical sectors should no longer view the UPC as an untested forum to be avoided. The statistics demonstrate that the court is handling a significant volume of cases in these fields, suggesting that competitors and industry participants are increasingly comfortable with UPC proceedings. Companies that fail to develop UPC-ready strategies may find themselves at a disadvantage in future patent disputes. The UPC's evolution from a court perceived as primarily focused on telecommunications to one handling substantial pharmaceutical and speciality chemical caseloads represents a significant development in European patent litigation. As the statistics continue to demonstrate increased activity across diverse technical fields, the UPC is cementing its position as the preferred forum for litigation of pan-European patent disputes alongside the more established EPO opposition proceedings.
For guidance on UPC strategy and proceedings in pharmaceutical and chemical patent matters, our experienced team can provide tailored advice on forum selection, case strategy, and procedural requirements.