Article 82

Enforcement of decisions and orders

1.   Decisions and orders of the Court shall be enforceable in any Contracting Member State. An order for the enforcement of a decision shall be appended to the decision by the Court.
2.   Where appropriate, the enforcement of a decision may be subject to the provision of security or an equivalent assurance to ensure compensation for any damage suffered, in particular in the case of injunctions.

3.   Without prejudice to this Agreement and the Statute, enforcement procedures shall be governed by the law of the Contracting Member State where the enforcement takes place. Any decision of the Court shall be enforced under the same conditions as a decision given in the Contracting Member State where the enforcement takes place.

4.   If a party does not comply with the terms of an order of the Court, that party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment payable to the Court. The individual penalty shall be proportionate to the importance of the order to be enforced and shall be without prejudice to the party's right to claim damages or security.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260204, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Appeal against order imposing penalties inadmissible. (Article 69 UPCA,  Art. 82(4) UPCA, Rule 354.4 RoP). Leave to appeal granted by first instance regarding confidentiality request (Rule 221 RoP) cannot be presumed to extend to the order imposing the penalty. The Legal remedy against a cost order for penalty payments (Article 69 UPCA) is an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP and not an application for leave to appeal against cost decisions according to R. 221 RoP. (Rule 220.2 RoP, Rule 221 RoP). Orders on costs, which concern both, the question of who bears the costs and the amount - are subject to the same legal remedy as the decision on the merits. 

IPPT20250530, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips

Recurring penalty payment (Article 82.4 UPCA, R. 354.4 RoP). The principle of nulla poena sine culpa means that a penalty sum shall only be imposed when the defendant's fault can be established. Maximum penalty amount payable must be defined in the order providing for a penalty. The appropriate amount of the penalty payment can only be reliably determined once the nature and extent of the breach of the order have been established. The fact that only a maximum penalty payment for each day of non-compliance (up to € 50.000) was provided – rather a specific amount – does not give rise to concerns. The amount of the penalty payment (later) to be imposed does not solely depend on the importance of the order that is reinforced with a penalty. After a breach has occurred, the Court must, in exercising its discretion, determine the amount of the penalty payment in a manner that is adapted to the circumstances and proportionate to the breach of the order. Relevant factors in this regard include, among others, aspects such as the severity of the established breach, its duration, and the defendant's ability to pay. 

IPPT20250617, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere

Applicable law; autonomous UPCA law (Article 24 UPCA). The legal framework in Austria and Germany is not decisive for the interpretation of Art. 82(2) UPCA because Art. 82(2) UPCA contains an independent provision that must be interpreted autonomously.

IPPT20250521, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere.

Unsuccessful application for suspensive effect of appeal (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP). Ordering security for enforcement is not necessary in every case but at the discretion of the Court (Article 82(1) UPCA). The Local Division correctly assumed that it is necessary to weigh the interest of the patent proprietor in the effective enforcement of his property right against the interest of the alleged patent infringer in the effective enforcement of possible claims for damages in the event of a subsequent annulment of the decision. No obvious error in weighing up the interests involved. Given that Knaus Tabbert was aware of the disputed patent and therefore took a calculated risk of patent infringement by marketing the contested embodiments, it is reasonable to refrain from ordering security for enforcement. No obvious error with regard to proportionality by orders for recall, removal from commerce and destruction of not only the contested frames, but the entire caravan. The patent does not protect individual components of minor importance, but rather the basic design of the caravan. Even if the disagreements between the parties, as argued by Knaus Tabbert, are only of a financial nature, the Order for destruction in particular may be justified. No risk of appeal becoming moot. It is true that, in the event of destruction of the contested embodiments, these cannot be reversed. However, Knaus Tabbert is entitled to damages in this case. It does not follow from Knaus Tabbert's submission that its interests are not sufficiently taken into account by the payment of damages. No reason to allow the argument that Yellow Sphere’s financial situation is insufficient to be raised for the first time in appeal. Proceedings for a stay of enforcement, in which the appeal court decides on the application without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) are not suitable for findings on the claimant’s financial circumstances, which – as a rule – can only be made after hearing the opposing party and findings of fact may also be necessary.

IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia- II
Penalty payment sanction (Article 82(4)UPCA) on a confidentiality order (Article 58 UPCA) can only be imposed on a party, but not against their representatives, which does not exclude the parties' liability for infringements by their representatives. Insofar as the requests relate to court staff, there is also no legal basis, since neither Rule 262 nor Rule 262A RoP is applicable with regard to court staff. It should also be noted that court staff are subject to a duty of confidentiality that extends beyond their period of service, in accordance with Article 5.3 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and other servants of the Unified Patent Court. 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA).No order for security granted (Art. 82(2) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) the Defendants have not provided any justification for making enforcement in this case dependent on the provision of security.

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Provisional injunction, seizure, obligation to provide information granted (Article 62 UPCA), interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 211.1(d) RoP), no security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). 

IPPT20251204, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v EOFLOW
Follows from Order of 22 July 2025 by CFI CD containing enforceable penalty provisions, following an Order on injunctive relief issued by the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 30 April 2025. Order for the payment of penalty of  EUR 150,000 for EoFlow’s non-compliance with obligations. (Article 62 UPCA, Article 82.4 UPCA, Rule 354 RoP) It is highly unlikely that the parties altered their usual modus operandi as shipment/payment activity corresponds to what was already presented during the injunction phase. It is likely that Menarini and EOFLOW simply continued their previous import-export business despite the injunction.  The causal link between behaviour and event must be measured on the principle of ‘more likely than not’.  UPC CFI CD Milan has jurisdiction for the determination of penalty payments for enforcement under Rule 354 RoP. A penalty order issued under Art. 82.4 UPCA, or a preliminary injunction issued under Art. 62 UPCA, may be enforced by the UPC itself. Preliminary injunctions are also court orders within the meaning of Article 82 UPCA. Determination of penalty […] lies with the competence of the relevant division of the UPC at first instance. This jurisdiction extends to the enforcement of decisions issued by the Court of Appeal at second instance.  
 

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
 Proportionate recurring penalty of € 1.000 for each day of delay (Article 63.2 UPCA, Article 82 UPCA). The Court notes that the obligation to comply with these kinds of orders normally are made subject of a recurrent penalty payment and finds no reason to deviate from this standard. However, the Court agrees with SIOEN that the amounts suggested by TEXPORT are unnecessarily high. Instead, the penalty payment for non-compliance with the injunction is set to up to EUR10 000 per violation, and the penalty payments for non-compliance with the orders on communication of information, recall and destruction are set to up to EUR1000 for each day of delay

IPPT20250723, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

€ 100.000+ penalty imposed upon Defendants (Article 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP) to punish their shortcomings and disobedience with the operative part of the decision of the UPC Claimant seeks to enforce and to coerce Defendants to comply with what had been ordered by the Court. The penalty regime imposed is three-pronged. No further warning was necessary. Indeed neither R. 354.3 or .4 RoP explicitly call for a warning. The language of R. 354.3 RoP does not call for a warning at least when – as it had been the case here – the decision on the merits unambiguously states that the imposition of penalties may be the court’s reaction to disobedience with the operative part of the judgement. One week deadline for recall and removal from channels of commerce seems reasonable (Article 62 UPCA)

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP)). The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties and only there appropriate penalties will have to be set in the light of the facts of the case. If Claimant had disagreed with the main decision, it would have been bound to challenge the points subject to this review with an appeal against the decision on the merits. It is not for the panel to now alter the operative part of that decision upon a request for panel review.

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
PI granted. No provision of security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). absent reasons given by the defendant nor a provision of how damages would be calculated. The undue burden can for example be related to the financial position of the applicant, or to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order for compensation shall be enforced, including the application of that foreign law. The Defendant applied in the objection for a security of enforcement. Apart from reproducing the wording of R. 211.5 RoP, no grounds were given for such an order. 

IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP). It is for the Defendant to submit facts and arguments as to why it is appropriate in the particular case to make the order or measure pursuant to R. 118.8 RoP subject to a security to be determined by the Court.

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Request to issue a penalty warning rejected (Article 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP). The panel explicitly decided in the main decision that no fixed time period for the provision of the information is set and that no amount of penalty is set up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties.

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Enforcement not subject to security (Article 82(2) UPCA). defendant has not presented any reasons that would justify making enforcement in the present case dependent on the provision of security. 

IPPT20241217, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips v Belkin
Penalty payment has both a deterrent and a punitive function (Article 82 UPCA). A penalty payment can therefore be imposed not only to enforce compliance with an order but also to punish non-compliance with a court order in the past

IPPT20240213, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). [...]. UPC decisions and orders are directly enforceable in the Netherlands in accordance with Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 71d Brussels and R. 354.1 RoP. A cautio in this case is hence not justified because of the risk that a possible cost order in favour of Bioo will not be directly enforceable. This contrasts with the situation decided by the CD Munich [IPPT20231030]  – [....] – on which Bioo relies. In that case the relevant claimant was domiciled outside the EU and no treaty regarding the execution of judgments was in place.

IPPT20231205, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring

Recurring penalty payments not subject to enforcement requirements under national law nor notification by the claimant (Article 82(4) UPCA, Rule 118(8) RoP, Rule 354 RoP). Non-compliance with the terms of a UPC order (article 62 UPCA) is sanctioned with a penalty payment on the basis of article 82(4) UPCA alone and not subject to further enforcement requirements existing under national enforcement laws of contracting member states. (see also Local Division Düsseldorf,  IPPT20231018, myStromer v Revolt Zycling). Rule 118(8) RoP – “orders shall be enforceable only after the claimant has notified the Court which part of the orders he intends to enforce” – does not apply to orders under Article 62 UPCA (provisional and protective measures). According to its clear wording ("The orders referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2(a)..."), Rule 118.8 of the Rules of Procedure does not apply to orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Dual purpose penalty payment: (a) to reliably deter the debtor from future infringements and violations (coercive function) and (b) also a penalty-like sanction for the violation of the court prohibition, which is why the imposition of a penalty payment also requires fault on the part of the debtor as an unwritten element of the offence. (see also Local Division Düsseldorf,  IPPT20231018, myStromer v Revolt Zycling). € 100.000 penalty payment for which the defendants are jointly liable. Each of the defendants is individually obliged to pay the penalty payment imposed; the payment is deemed to have been settled for all defendants as soon as the total amount has been received by the Unified Patent Court.

IPPT20231018, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, myStromer v Revolt Zycling

Recurring penalty payments are imposed on the basis of article 82(4) UPCA and not governed by provisions of national enforcement law (Article 82(4) UPCA, Rule 354 RoP). Provision of article 82(3) UPCA is superseded by Art. 82 (4) UPCA in conjunction with R. 354.3 and .354.3 RoP. € 26.500 awarded in recurring penalty payment to the UPC because of non-compliance with ex parte provisional injunction (article 82(4) UPCA). If a court order is not complied with by one of the parties, the UPC may – either at the request of the other party or ex officio – decide on the imposition of the periodic penalty payments provided for in the order.  The decisive criterion for determining the amount of the penalty payment is the significance of the order and thus ultimately the interest of the creditor in enforcing it, which may consist, for example, in distributing the patented products. The recurring penalty payment has a dual purpose: primarily a punitive function as well as a penalty for violation of the court order. It presupposes fault on the part of the debtor. The dual purpose requires that primarily the debtor and his conduct is considered. In particular, the type, scope and duration of the infringement, the degree of fault, the infringer's advantage from the infringing act and the harms of the committed and possible future infringing acts for the infringed party must be taken into account. The debtor's past conduct is a decisive, although not necessarily the sole, indicator for the amount of the penalty payment to be imposed. The more frequently and intensively the debtor has violated the restraining order imposed on him, the more clearly he has expressed his unwillingness to comply with the restraining order. The assessment of the penalty payment must take this into account: If the debtor has already violated the cease-and-desist order several times in the past, the necessary pressure increases in order to force him to comply with the order in the future. Therefore, the respective penalty payment must be correspondingly higher. If, on the other hand, the debtor has made a serious effort to comply with the injunction, this must be taken into account in his favour.