In a decision dated 16 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_86/2025), the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) held that an intangible data stream, such as an encoded video stream (a “bitstream”), may qualify as a “product” within the meaning of Articles 25(a) and 25(c) of the UPC Agreement.
By way of reminder, these provisions define the acts that a patent proprietor may prohibit, including the making, offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or possessing a “product which is the subject matter of the patent” (Article 25(a)) or a “product obtained directly by a process which is the subject matter of the patent” (Article 25(c)).
Among the various issues discussed in the case, the patent proprietor argued that a data stream transmitted over the Internet or through any other communication system should be treated in the same way as data stored on a tangible medium.
The Mannheim Local Division agreed. It found that there is no technically relevant distinction between data stored on a physical carrier and the same data when transmitted electronically. According to the UPC, the physical medium has no particular technical significance for the use of the information contained in the stream, as it merely serves as a storage carrier.
This reasoning represents a significant development in patent litigation. Historically, the concept of a “product” has been associated primarily with tangible objects. By recognizing that a bitstream may itself constitute a product, the UPC is adapting patent law to the realities of modern digital technologies, where economic value often lies more in the data and its processing than in the medium through which the data is conveyed.
Nevertheless, caution remains warranted. The defendant did not challenge the patent proprietor’s interpretation on this point, and the precise scope of the decision will need to be clarified by future case law, particularly by the UPC Court of Appeal. Questions remain regarding the limits of this approach and how it will interact with more traditional concepts of European patent law.
In any event, the decision illustrates the UPC’s willingness to develop case law that is responsive to the challenges of the digital economy.