Built on decades of intellectual property expertise.

Statistics on the Unified Patent Court: Most active claimants - September 2026

Introduction

As part of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's series on statistics on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), this report reviews claimant activity, party origin, patent subject-matter and use of Local Divisions before the Court of First Instance. The underlying data is derived from HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's internal database as of 1 September 2026. The source data is limited to revocation and infringement actions, applications for provisional measures and declarations of non-infringement. Throughout the analysis, counterclaims for revocation or infringement are not counted as separate actions.

1.  Most active claimants

The top ten claimants account for 164 initiated cases before the UPC. Huawei brought 20 cases, Abbott and Broadcom 19 each, Panasonic 18, Ericsson 17, Nokia 16, InterDigital 15, Dolby and Philips 14 each, and Valeo 12 (entities belonging to the same corporate group being aggregated and treated as one).

The companies largely fall into two categories: Huawei, Broadcom, Panasonic, Ericsson, Nokia, InterDigital, Philips and Dolby are closely associated with telecommunications, semiconductors, electronics or digital-media technology. Abbott and Valeo are the clearest departures from these sectors, with Abbott focused on medical devices and diagnostics and Valeo focused on automotive technology.

2.  Nationalities of claimants

2.1 Geographic distribution by legal entity

In the graphic below showing the geographic distribution by legal entity is based on the parties formally named in the proceedings. Out of 949 legal entities within the selected proceedings, Europe accounts for 61% claimants, North America for 23% and Asia for 16%. Oceania and South America are each below 1%.

Although the claimant entities are predominantly European, a substantial part of the claimant base is not. Approximately 39% of the named claimant entities are based outside Europe. UPC litigation is therefore a clear part of the wider international patent strategies of companies based in North America and Asia as well as Europe.

2.2 Geographic distribution by location of headquarters

When claimants are attributed by location of headquarters, Europe accounts for 51%, North America for 31% and Asia for 17%. Oceania and South America are each below 1%.

2.2 Geographic distribution by location of headquarters

When claimants are attributed by location of headquarters, Europe accounts for 51%, North America for 31% and Asia for 17%. Oceania and South America are each below 1%.

The total number of unique claimants reduces to 846. This lower total reflects the grouping of claimant entities at corporate group level. A single proceeding may include several claimant subsidiaries belonging to the same corporate group. Those entities are counted separately in the legal entity analysis, whereas the headquarters assessment assigns them under one umbrella company and attributes that group to the country of its headquarters. Several entity level claimant entries can therefore correspond to one headquarters-based claimant entry.

The difference between the two maps indicates that some non-European corporate groups use local European subsidiaries to initiate actions at the Court. This is most apparent for North American corporations: their share increases from 23% when only measuring North American legal entities to 31% when measured by entities allocated to North American corporations. A similar pattern is visible for Asia-based corporations, whose share increases from 16% to 17% when measured by location of headquarters.

3.  Nationalities of defendants

From the 2815 legal entities as defendants, Europe accounts for 71%, Asia for 16% and North America for 12%. A further 1% is recorded as anonymized data pursuant to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Oceania present a negligible proportion of the total.

The Europe-focused profile of defendants follows naturally from claims being directed at European operating, sales or distribution entities involved in the alleged acts within the UPC territory. Several companies from the same corporate group may also be named where different entities participate in manufacture, importation, supply or sales across the relevant markets.

The difference between the total of claimants by legal entity versus total of defendants by entity reflects the fact that a single action often involves several defendant entities within the same corporate group.

4.  Industries with the most litigation

This section shows the top 10 litigated patent classes. 11 classes are displayed, as two categories come in tenth. The leading fields fall into two broad groups: digital and communications technology, and pharmaceutical/medical technology.

The digital and communications group is the largest. Video processing (H04N/19) is the leading category with 52 cases, followed by data switching and network transport with 26 (H04L/12). Wireless resource management (H04W/72), channel sharing (H04L/05), voice and audio AI (G10L/19), and software execution (G06F/09) add further communications and software categories. This profile corresponds with the industries of the most active claimants, such as, Huawei, Broadcom, Panasonic, Ericsson, Nokia, InterDigital, Dolby and Philips.

Life sciences and medical technology form the second broad category. Diagnostics and clinical sensing (A61B/05) appear in 24 cases, surgical technology (A61B/17) and pharmaceutical formulation (A61K/31) in 21 each, molecular diagnostics and bio-analytics (C12Q/01) in 18, and implantable and restorative medtech (A61F/02) in 13. 

The distribution across the two broader categories confirms variety in litigated sectors, despite the heavy concentration of engineering industries within the most frequent users of the Court.

5.  Claimants' choice of Local Division

The division charts compare the top 12 countries from which claimants originate, across the eight Local Divisions with the most actions. The count includes unique corporate groups per case, with entities under the same parent corporation treated as one claimant.

The four German Local Divisions account for 479 of the 609 displayed cases. Munich alone records 202 cases, followed by Düsseldorf with 129, Mannheim with 85 and Hamburg with 63. The German Local Divisions therefore handle the highest number of actions before the Court.

The concentration in Germany is not primarily due to a domestic effect. Of the 479 cases before the four German Local Divisions, 367 were initiated by non-German corporations. US groups have brought 177 of their 228 displayed cases in Germany, while the focus on Germany is even stronger for Chinese (33 out of 34 actions) and Japanese (38 out of 40 actions) companies.

Yet, several European corporations do appear to prefer the Local Divisions in their own country. German companies record 112 of their 117 cases in the four German Local Divisions, Dutch groups record 14 of 27 in The Hague, and French groups record 13 of 31 in Paris.

As noted above, despite the focus on Germany, US claimants also file cases elsewhere. They represent the most prevalent claimant nationality in The Hague and are close behind French groups in Paris. 

Milan shows a more varied claimant profile, while the number of displayed appearances in Brussels remains too small to support a broader forum-use conclusion.

The charts show observed use of the Local Divisions. This does not reflect unrestricted forum choice. The choice for a Local Division depends on the UPC's rules on competence and venue and on the circumstances of the particular action. Within those constraints, the data shows a pronounced concentration of international claimant activity in the German Local Divisions, while domestic alignment remains visible for several European claimant groups. 

6.  Discussion and conclusions

This analysis shows that the UPC is developing as a European forum for disputes brought by international patent litigants, particularly those active in the communications, electronics and healthcare sectors. The difference between claimant entities and corporate headquarters indicates that this international participation is partly channelled through European subsidiaries.

The industry-related data supports the same trend. Communications and digital technologies account for the largest concentration of cases, which is consistent with the profile of many of the most active claimants, while the substantial presence of medical and life-sciences technologies shows that UPC litigation is not developing around a single industry. The division data also suggests that forum use is shaped by both international litigation strategy and national connections, aside from procedural constraints.

Any interpretation of these figures should take the scope of the analysis into account. The data covers the specified categories of Court of First Instance proceedings and identifies patterns in claimant activity, party origin, patent classes and use of Local Divisions. It does not by itself establish why a particular party or forum was chosen in an individual case.

Further insight into the UPC's functioning and trends is provided through HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's ongoing statistical analysis, published on a monthly basis, with regular updates shared on LinkedIn and on our website: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: Your Go To Unified Patent Court Law Firm.

Data Note

The figures in this report are derived from HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's internal database as of 1 September 2026. Unless otherwise stated, the analysis is limited to revocation and infringement actions, applications for provisional measures and declarations of non-infringement. Counterclaims for revocation or infringement are not counted as separate actions. Entities within the same corporate group are aggregated under one claimant name and are treated as one claimant where expressly stated. The Local Division charts show the top 12 claimant countries across the top eight Local Divisions and count unique grouped claimants per case. Percentages are rounded to closest whole number.