Name the division when you know it — *"Munich Local Division"*, *"Court of Appeal Luxembourg"* — because the divisions differ in procedural culture, and it is the Court of Appeal that sets the doctrine.
## What it covers
Decisions and orders from the UPC across all of its proceedings:
| Proceeding | What it is |
| ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Infringement actions** | Brought before a Local or Regional Division, or before the Central Division where no local forum applies. |
| **Revocation actions** | Standalone challenges to the validity of a patent, filed at the Central Division. |
| **Declarations of non-infringement** | Also at the Central Division, where a party wants certainty that its product falls outside the claims. |
| **Provisional measures** | Preliminary injunctions, evidence preservation and inspection orders. |
| **Procedural orders** | The case-management, confidentiality, language and cost decisions issued along the way. |
Pleadings and evidence are not automatically public; **decisions and orders are**, and it is those that Libra searches.
## Court structure
| Tier | Divisions |
| --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Court of First Instance** | The Central Division — the Paris seat plus the Munich and Milan sections — together with the Local Divisions in the participating Member States and the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division. |
| **Court of Appeal** | Luxembourg. |
## Languages
Local and Regional Divisions use the local language, an EPO language designated by the division (English, German, French), or the patent's language of grant if parties and panel agree. The Central Division uses the language of the patent. The Court of Appeal uses the language of first instance. **English is dominant in practice.**
## Landmark decisions worth knowing
* **10x Genomics v NanoString** *(UPC\_CFI\_2/2023; CoA UPC\_CoA\_335/2023)*: the first substantive PI granted, and the first substantive Court of Appeal decision (which overturned the PI on inventive-step grounds). Set the UPC's framework for assessing validity at PI stage.
* **Sanofi v Amgen** *(Munich section of the Central Division)*: the UPC's first revocation decision on the merits, which set out the court's approach to inventive step from a "realistic" starting point.
## Practice areas
Patent infringement and validity for European patents (classical bundle patents not opted out, plus Unitary Patents), preliminary injunctions, cross-border enforcement within the **18 contracting states**.
## What you can ask
* *"What standard is the UPC Court of Appeal applying to inventive step in PI proceedings?"*
* *"How has the Munich Local Division ruled on bifurcation when a counterclaim for revocation is filed?"*
* *"Find recent UPC decisions on the territorial scope of injunctions for unitary patents."*
* *"Has the Court of Appeal addressed the standard for added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC in revocation proceedings?"*
## Setup
None. The Unified Patent Court is **Included** with every Libra subscription, so there is nothing to connect in **Settings → Integrations**. Click **Research** in the composer, tick **European Union** under **Jurisdictions**, and switch on **Unified Patent Court** — it sits in that jurisdiction alongside **European Union Case Law**.
## Tips