# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoyngrokhmonegier.com%2Fde%2Fneuigkeiten%2Fdetail%2Fstatistics-on-the-unified-patent-court-provisional-measures%26title%3DStatistics%20on%20the%20Unified%20Patent%20Court%3A%20Provisional%20Measures%20%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Statistics on the Unified Patent Court: Provisional Measures 05. März 2026 News Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic News As a part of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER’s series on statistics on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), this article presents an analysis on the trends arising from applications for provisional measures. The dataset was collected by 5 March 2026 and reflects publicly available decisions on the UPC registry. The data excludes withdrawn actions as well as anti-anti-suit injunctions and anti-interim licence injunctions. Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe [**here** ](https://mailchi.mp/8fbd8890d03b/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng)for monthly updates. You can also contact our experts [here](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts). ### Provisional measures #### 1. Success rate for applications on provisional measures (Courts of First Instance) By 5 March 2026, a total of 57 orders concerning provisional measures had been issued by First Instance Divisions. The success rate of an application for provisional measures is slightly in favour of the claimants: on 33 (58%) applications, the measures were granted, whilst 24 (42%) applications were denied. Upon review per court, the highest success rate was observed at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, where the court granted 10 out of its 14 received applications (71%). The Local Division of The Hague granted 67% of received applications, whilst the Local Division of Munich did so for 64% of the applications. Under this proceeding type, success has been defined as the panel's grant of the application in full or in part, with the effect that the respondent must bear certain legal consequences. Unsurprisingly, for all applications granted ex parte, a sufficient likelihood of infringement and urgency was found. The *ex parte* nature of these proceedings appears to increase the likelihood of an order for security, with 5 (63%) out of 8 ex parte decisions in the dataset requiring the provision of security by the claimant. In *inter partes* cases, security was required in 27% of orders. **Figure 1. Applications for provisional measures (excluding anti-anti-suit injunctions and anti-interim licence injunctions)** #### 2. Reasons for denial of applications for provisional measures The grounds for denial most frequently cited by the court were invalidity, lack of urgency, and non-infringement on technical grounds. The likelihood of the patent being invalid ranked as the highest reason, with 38%. Both lack of urgency and the unlikeliness of patent infringement on technical grounds formed the basis for denial in 33% of the cases. In 13% of UPC provisional measures applications, the denial was based on lack of imminent infringement ([*Novartis/Genentech v Celltrion*](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/C7905AFC231076CBF7F3AFBB6EF9BB32_en.pdf)*;* [*Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva*](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/BD863190C8435CC47CD56CFA9BE61449_en.pdf)). In these cases, the state of preparation of the defendant had not yet reached the point at which infringement was about to occur. One application was rejected for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the patent had been opted out ([*AIM Sport v Supponor*)](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/2023-10-20-ld-helsinki-upc_cfi_214-2023-ord_572699-2023-act_551054-2023-and-ord_581208-2023-app_580529-2023-anonymized.pdf) Overall, the statistics confirm that most unsuccessful applications for provisional measures fail on technical grounds. Also urgency counts as a strictly imposed requirement, generally assessed on the basis of a failure to act without delay from the point at which the patent holder became aware of the alleged infringement. **Figure 2. Reasons for denial of provisional measures** #### 3. Duration of inter partes applications for provisional measures The time to reach a decision on *inter partes* provisional measures is relatively short. The majority (61%) was decided within two to three months from the date of formal receipt. A further 35% of orders were issued within four to five months from filing. In exceptional instances, applications were concluded in approximately one month ([*Ballinno v UEFA and Kinexon*](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/EBC48C668C2A67842ABE7BBFF9505D7E_en.pdf)) and, at the other end, in more than six months ([*Hand Held Products v Scandit*](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/81C17323F58CDD78B25B158158ADE234_de.pdf)). These exceptions reflect the degree of discretion available to panels in the conduct of proceedings, as well as the impact of procedural complications in individual cases. **Figure 3. Duration of an inter partes application for provisional measures. Out of the decided applications, 81% (46 orders) were concluded in inter partes proceedings** #### 4. Duration of ex parte applications for provisional measures The ex parte application for provisional measures is the fastest proceeding available before the UPC. The time required to reach a decision was no more than five days in the vast majority of applications (78%). In one case, the application took 22 days to resolve. It had been commenced as an inter partes proceeding, but the court refused the measures before the defendants were heard. On this basis, an applicant for an ex parte order can reasonably expect its case will be concluded within one to two weeks from the date of filing. **Figure 4. Duration of an ex parte application for provisional measures. A total 11 ex parte applications have been decided.** #### 5. Outcome of provisional measures on appeal By 5 March 2026, there had been 16 decisions by the Court of Appeal on provisional measures (excluding orders on suspensive effect and requests for discretionary review). The distribution of outcomes shows that the court is prepared to revise first instance conclusions in both directions. In 31% of the orders, the court granted provisional measures where the first instance division had denied them. In a further 19% of cases, the Court of Appeal denied provisional measures that had been granted in first instance, reversing the decision in the defendant's favour. The combined overturn rate across all categories therefore stands at 50%, with the remaining half of decisions either confirming a first instance grant (19%) or a first instance denial (31%). This rate of revision is substantial. The court’s willingness to overturn first instance orders in either direction may reflect that applications for provisional measures are decided on a summary assessment of the available evidence, and that a different panel may reach a different conclusion on the same facts when presented with more substantial submissions. **Figure 5. Outcome of an appeal on provisional measures** #### 6. Duration of an appeal on provisional measures Appeals on provisional measures were found to last considerably longer compared to first instance proceedings. The majority (50%) of the 16 orders in the dataset were concluded within four to five months from the date of the appeal. A further 25% were resolved within six to seven months, while 19% were concluded quicker, within two to three months. Only one appeal required 10 months to reach a final order. The dataset excludes orders on suspensive effect and requests for discretionary review. Figure 6. Duration of an appeal on provisional measures #### 7. Suspensive effect on provisional measures A respondent who is subject to a first instance order for provisional measures may apply to the Court of Appeal for a suspensive effect, which, upon grant, postpones the enforcement of the order pending the outcome of the appeal. Of the orders in the dataset that resulted in a grant of provisional measures at first instance, 24% were subject to an application for suspensive effect (eight applications). The Court of Appeal divided the decisions on these evenly, with four applications (50%) granted and four (50%) denied. **Figure 7. Suspensive effect on provisional measures** #### 8. Discussion and conclusions The data presented in this article reflects the UPC's approach to provisional measures across the first two and a half years of its operation. These findings offer a picture of how the court has functioned so far. The success rate at first instance is relatively favourable for applicants, though detailed review confirms differences on the local level. Where applications fail, a provisional finding of invalidity is the most common ground. The near-equal weight of urgency and non-infringement as grounds for denial reinforces the importance all three. At the appellate level, first instance outcomes are subject to revision in both directions. Overall, both inter partes and ex parte applications are resolved within comparatively short timeframes relative to main merits proceedings. By contrast, the duration of appeals is substantially longer. Further insight into the UPC’s functioning and trends is provided through HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER’s ongoing statistical analysis published on a monthly basis, and with regular updates shared on [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/hoyng-rokh-monegier/posts/?feedView=all) and on our website: [HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: Unified Patent Court & Unitary Patents](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/unified-patent-court-upc) The statistics included in this article are based on decisions of the Unified Patent Court and are intended to provide an indicative overview. The dataset was collected as of 5 March 2026.