Stay on top of UPC case law.
One decision at a time.

Case cards · legal texts · decision PDFs · semantic search · AI chat

For UPC representatives, European patent attorneys and IP professionals.

Start your 30-day free trial
No credit card required to start.

Stay current. Built for busy professionals.

Case Cards

Explore UPC case law through AI-generated decision cards.

UPC Legal Texts

UPCA, Rules of Procedure and more. Browse and search.

Case Law Library

Key decisions with one-click access to the original PDF.

Decision Search

Find decisions by case reference or by topic using semantic search.

AI Chat

Ask questions about any decision. Answers grounded in the source text.

Desktop & mobile

Works in your browser. Install as an app — no app store needed.

How it works

1

Pick your focus

Choose case law or legal provisions. Filter by division, topic, or recency.

2

Explore the cards

Each card distils a decision into its key holdings. Swipe through at your pace.

3

Go deeper

Open the PDF, chat with the decision, or save it for later. Everything in one place.

What the cards look like

Decisions distilled into focused cards. Legal provisions at your fingertips.

Case cards
AI-generated 1/2
UPC_CFI_218-2023_Order_2024-04-30
LD Mannheim | EP••••••• | [Patentee] | [Defendant 1] | [Defendant 2] | [Defendant 3]
The court holds that the legal basis for an order to produce license agreements in an SEP/FRAND context is the rapporteur's general case management power under provisions like Art. 43 UPCA and R. 103 RoP.

This power is concretised by the court's duty to give effect to EU competition law, particularly the transparency obligations established in the *Huawei v ZTE* framework.

The court clarifies that R. 172.2 RoP is not a suitable basis, as it concerns the proof of *disputed* facts, whereas license agreements are often produced to substantiate legal arguments before a factual dispute arises.

Similarly, R. 190.1 RoP is not directly applicable for orders directed against oneself or an affiliated party on the same side of the litigation, as they do not qualify as an "opposing party" ("gegnerische Partei").
AI-generated content may contain errors. Always verify against primary sources.
AI-generated 2/2
UPC_CFI_218-2023_Order_2024-04-30
A party seeking an order to produce a license agreement must first make demonstrable efforts to obtain consent from the third-party licensee.

These efforts must include providing the licensee with specific details about the pending case and the UPC's confidentiality regime to allow for an informed decision; a blanket request is insufficient.

The court may issue a production order if the licensee refuses consent without sufficient reason, provides no response, or gives conditional consent that the UPC's confidentiality regime can satisfy.

The court considers that parties to SEP license agreements generally cannot refuse consent with valid legal grounds, given the overriding transparency requirements of EU competition law.

Upon ordering production, the court permits the producing party to redact passages not relied upon for its factual allegations and legal arguments, per the principle of party presentation under Art. 43 UPCA.
AI-generated content may contain errors. Always verify against primary sources.
Legal provision cards
1/1
Article 52 UPCA
Written, interim and oral procedures
1. The proceedings before the Court shall consist of a written, an interim and an oral procedure, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. All procedures shall be organized in a flexible and balanced manner.

2. In the interim procedure, after the written procedure and if appropriate, the judge acting as Rapporteur, subject to a mandate of the full panel, shall be responsible for convening an interim hearing. That judge shall in particular explore with the parties the possibility for a settlement, including through mediation, and/or arbitration, by using the facilities of the Centre referred to in Article 35.

3. The oral procedure shall give parties the opportunity to explain properly their arguments. The Court may, with the agreement of the parties, dispense with the oral hearing.
1/1
Rule 141 RoP
Contents of the Request to lay open books
If the applicant has made a request pursuant to Rule 131.1(c), Rules 134 to 136 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The Request shall contain:

(a) particulars in accordance with Rule 131.1(a) and (b);

(b) details of any information ordered by the Court and given by the other party pursuant to Rule 191;

(c) a description of the information held by the unsuccessful party to which the applicant requests access, in particular documents relating to turnover and profits generated by the infringing products or regarding the extent of use of the infringing process as well as accounts and bank documents, and any related document concerning the infringement;

(d) the reasons why the applicant needs access to this information;

(e) the facts relied on; and

(f) the evidence offered in support.

Simple pricing

EARLY ADOPTER RATE
€49
per year · excl. VAT
  • ✓ 30-day free trial with full access
  • ✓ Key UPC decisions and legal provisions
  • ✓ One-click access to original decision PDFs
  • ✓ AI-powered case cards and semantic search
  • ✓ Per-decision AI chat (500k tokens/month)
  • ✓ Works on desktop, tablet, and mobile
Start your 30-day free trial

Get started in seconds

Desktop

Open upc.jollycase.eu in your browser. Bookmark it. Done.

iPhone

Open upc.jollycase.eu in Safari. Tap Share, then "Add to Home Screen."

Android

Open upc.jollycase.eu in Chrome. Tap the install banner or menu → "Install app."

Questions

What is JollyCase upc?
JollyCase upc is a reference tool for UPC representatives, European patent attorneys, and IP professionals. It covers UPC case law from the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal, as well as key legal texts including the UPC Agreement and Rules of Procedure. The collection focuses on decisions and orders with substantive legal value, each one editorially selected.
How is JollyCase different from UPC decision databases?
JollyCase is a reference tool, not a database. Decision databases let you research specific cases when you need them. JollyCase surfaces UPC case law in a format designed for regular professional use — distilled cards, fast search, and original-source PDFs in one place.
How does the free trial work?
You get 30 days of full access to all features. No credit card is required to start. At the end of the trial, you can subscribe for €49/year excl. VAT (early adopter rate) to continue.
Where is JollyCase available?
At this time, JollyCase is made available only to professional users established in the European Union. We expect to extend availability to additional jurisdictions in due course.
Is the content AI-generated?
Decision summaries, case cards, and chat responses are generated using AI. Semantic search results are ranked using AI. All AI-generated content is clearly labelled. You can always consult the original decision PDF directly within the app. Legal provisions are reproduced verbatim from official sources.
Can I get an invoice for my employer?
Yes. Invoices are generated automatically. Business customers can enter their EU VAT number during checkout for reverse-charge billing.
Is JollyCase affiliated with the UPC?
No. JollyCase is an independent tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the Unified Patent Court.
What data do you collect?
We collect your name, email, country, professional role, and billing information to operate the service and confirm your eligibility to use JollyCase. We also track usage data such as sessions completed and decisions explored to manage your account and improve the platform. Full details are in our Privacy Policy. You can export or delete your data at any time.