UPDATE

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently released statistics on case load updated end of March.

It's worth noting the consolidation of some trends, which have already emerged in last months and described in our previous GLPoint, as the first 100 cases handled by the UPC were approaching.

Until the end of march more than 300 cases were filed:

• 110 counterfeiting proceedings;
• 28 revocation proceedings: 24 before the Paris Central Division and 4 before the Munich Central Division;
• 142 counterclaims for revocation filed during a counterfeiting proceeding related to the same patent;
• 29 preliminary measures, including some requests for preservations of evidence (6) and inspection (1) aimed to find evidences of the counterfeiting.

Such a high number of counterclaims for revocation is explained because the system considers each counterclaim filed by each defendant in the infringement proceeding as an independent action. In practice, the 142 counterclaims are linked to 46 infringement proceedings. From this data it can be deduced that in 64 infringement proceedings the defendants did not file any counterclaim for revocation, at least in the context of the same proceeding at the local court seized by the plaintiff.

The picture is completed by one proceeding for the recognition of damage and one declaration of non-infringement (DNI) procedure.

With regard to the geographical distribution of the proceedings, the great dynamism of the German local courts is confirmed, which are those that handle the largest number of cases: in particular Munich (43 cases), Düsseldorf (24 cases) and Mannheim (14 cases). Next, we find the local division of Paris (9 cases), Hamburg and the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (with 5 cases each), Milan and The Hague (3 cases each). Finally, Brussels, Helsinki, Copenhagen and Vienna each handle one case. No cases have yet been filed with the local divisions based in Lisbon and Ljubljana.

This geographical subdivision is reflected in the choice of the language in which the ongoing proceedings are discussed, for which English (45% of cases) and German (47% of cases) are essentially on par. In some cases, actually in a very small number, the language of the proceedings is French (3%), Italian (3%) and Dutch (2%).

As regards the reference technological sector, the trend that emerged from the first 100 cases is completely confirmed.

Below is the updated graph with the distribution by class of the international patent classification of cases both in relation to infringement proceedings and in relation to revocation proceedings. For the latter, both the revocation proceedings and the counterclaims for revocation were considered.

Legend IPC classes:
A: human needs; B: execution of operations, transport; C: chemistry, metallurgy; D: textiles, paper; E: fixed constructions; F: mechanical engineering, lighting, heating; G: physics and H: electricity.

Most of the proceedings pertain to the electrical/electronic/IT or telecommunications field (classes G and H), the field of the mechanical patents (class B) or chemical-pharmaceutical (classes A or C). However, the number of cases in classes D, E and F, which are the least 'litigious', is zero or residual. As can be seen from the graphs, this trend is similar for both counterfeiting and revocation actions.

Finally, regarding the case load of the court of appeal, it is noted that it currently handles a much smaller number of cases. These are physiological and entirely expected numbers which are destined to grow as soon as the sentences of the first instance proceedings currently underway will be issued.

In fact, only three appeal cases refer to sentences or decisions issued at the end of the first level of judgment, while another nine cases relate to decisions relating to the preliminary measures or the language of the proceedings. A further fifteen appeal cases relate to appealable decisions made by lower courts during first instance proceedings.