Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently published its 2025 Annual Report, offering a useful snapshot of the court’s development during its second full year of operation. Interestingly, the report highlights the growing prominence of Chinese parties in UPC litigation.

Among infringement actions, China ranks third by claimant origin following Germany and the United States, and fourth by defendant nationality following Germany, The Netherlands and France, underscoring the increasing importance of Chinese companies within the UPC system.

The annual report, however, does not provide a detailed analysis of Chinese participation in patent infringement proceedings. To address that gap, this article undertakes an independent review of all patent infringement actions filed before the UPC Court of First Instance during 2025.

Using the UPC's public case search tool, each infringement action was reviewed individually to identify cases involving at least one Chinese party and to record the relevant technology sector, procedural venue and party position.

The review identified 253 infringement actions recorded in the UPC public case search tool for 2025, of which 97 involved at least one Chinese party.

Chinese parties therefore appeared in approximately 38% of the visible infringement docket.

The figures confirm that Chinese companies are now among the most frequent participants in UPC litigation. More importantly, they suggest that Chinese companies are transitioning from being primarily enforcement targets to becoming increasingly sophisticated users of the system.

Chinese companies predominantly defendants

The most immediate observation is that Chinese companies continue to be on there receiving end of infringement litigation more often than they act as claimants. Among the 97 cases involving Chinese parties, 84 involved at least one Chinese defendant. Twenty involved a Chinese claimant, including seven disputes in which both claimant and defendant were Chinese entities.

Many of the defendants operate in sectors characterised by intensive patent licensing and enforcement activity, particularly telecommunications, consumer electronics and connected devices.

The data also reveal repeated enforcement campaigns against a relatively small group of companies, including Xiaomi, Transsion, Huawei, OPPO, vivo, BYD, TCL and Hisense. This pattern is consistent with broader global trends in which major operating companies and licensing entities pursue portfolio-based litigation strategies against significant market participants.

For rightsholders, the UPC's ability to deliver remedies covering multiple European jurisdictions through a single action makes it an attractive forum for such campaigns.

For Chinese companies with substantial European operations, the UPC has therefore become a significant litigation risk requiring strategic attention rather than merely reactive defence.

Telecoms remains the centre of gravity

The technology distribution of the cases is equally revealing. Telecommunications and standards-related disputes accounted for the largest share of the docket. Many involved standard essential patents, codec technologies and licensing programmes associated with mobile communications and connected devices.

The UPC offers SEP owners a potentially powerful enforcement mechanism, while implementers face the prospect of pan-European injunctions and damages claims. Unsurprisingly, the court is increasingly becoming part of the global forum competition surrounding SEP disputes.

At the same time, Chinese-party litigation before the UPC is no longer confined to telecommunications.

Significant numbers of cases arose in manufacturing, consumer electronics, chemicals, semiconductors, medical devices, batteries and solar technologies. Particularly notable is the growing presence of disputes involving energy-transition technologies and advanced manufacturing.

The diversification of technologies appearing before the court suggests that the UPC is becoming relevant to a much broader range of Chinese businesses, not only those operating in traditional SEP-heavy sectors.

Germany remains the primary battleground

Venue selection continues to reflect familiar European patent-litigation dynamics. Munich emerged as the leading UPC division for disputes involving Chinese parties, with Mannheim and Düsseldorf also handling substantial numbers of cases. Together, the German local divisions accounted for the overwhelming majority of the litigation.

This concentration reflects the long-standing experience of the German patent judiciary, the commercial significance of the German market and litigants’willingness to build on enforcement strategies developed before the UPC’s creation.

An equally notable feature of the dataset is that Chinese claimants overwhelmingly chose German divisions when enforcing their own patents.

This suggests that Chinese patentees have rapidly adopted the same forum-selection preferences as established European and US litigants, viewing Munich and Mannheim as the UPC's most influential venues for technology disputes.

The Hague division also saw increasing involvement of Chinese parties, but Chinese claimants rarely selected it as their preferred venue. Instead, Chinese companies appearing before that division were generally defendants responding to actions brought by others. For in-house counsel and patent owners, the data reinforce the importance of Germany as the central venue for UPC enforcement strategies.

The rise of Chinese claimants

Perhaps the most significant development is the growing number of Chinese companies using the UPC offensively. Twenty of the 97 cases involving Chinese parties were initiated by Chinese claimants. Although Chinese entities remain defendants more often than claimants, the emergence of a meaningful claimant cohort is itself noteworthy.

The data suggest that leading Chinese patent owners increasingly view the UPC as a practical mechanism for enforcing patent rights across Europe.

Companies such as Huawei and Yangtze Memory Technologies are no longer merely defending themselves against foreign rightsholders; they are actively leveraging the UPC to support broader commercial and licensing objectives.

Perhaps the clearest indicator of the UPC’s maturation is the emergence of Chinese-versus-Chinese disputes. Seven of the 20 cases brought by Chinese claimants involved Chinese defendants, spanning telecommunications, electronics, manufacturing and solar technologies.

Historically, many disputes between Chinese companies with international operations might have been litigated primarily before Chinese courts. Their appearance before the UPC suggests that parties increasingly regard the court as a strategically important forum for resolving global competitive conflicts

What the data suggest for 2026 and beyond

The findings point to a broader structural shift in the role of Chinese companies within the international patent system.

First, Chinese businesses are becoming an indispensable part of the UPC ecosystem. Their participation is no longer limited to isolated disputes involving a handful of technology companies.

Second, the court is increasingly being used as a strategic enforcement tool by sophisticated Chinese patent owners seeking Europe-wide remedies.

Third, the expansion of litigation into sectors such as semiconductors, medical devices, batteries and renewable-energy technologies suggests that Chinese involvement in UPC proceedings will continue to diversify beyond telecommunications and SEPs.

For patent owners, implementers and investors, the implication is clear, understanding Chinese litigation behaviour is becoming an essential component of UPC strategy. The most important question is no longer whether Chinese companies will participate in the UPC system, but how rapidly they will expand their use of it as both defendants and rightsholders.

The evidence from the 2025 docket suggests that this transition is already underway.

Chinese companies are no longer participating in the UPC primarily because they are being sued there. Increasingly, they are participating because they regard the court as a valuable strategic asset in their own patent enforcement programmes.

‍

Author: Xiaofan Chen - Partner, Chinese Patent Attorney