# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhoyngrokhgroup.com%2Fde%2Fneuigkeiten%2Fdetail%2Fenforcing-upc-monetary-awards-in-germany-seizure-of-patent-portfolios-before-the-munich-district-court%26title%3DEnforcing%20UPC%20Monetary%20Awards%20in%20Germany%3A%20Seizure%20of%20Patent%20Portfolios%20Before%20the%20Munich%20District%20Court%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Enforcing UPC Monetary Awards in Germany: Seizure of Patent Portfolios Before the Munich District Court 17. Juni 2026 News Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic News The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has rapidly become one of the most important venues for patent litigation in Europe. While much attention has been devoted to injunctions and damages awards, a practical question is increasingly relevant for successful claimants: how can monetary claims arising from UPC decisions be enforced against an unwilling debtor? Once a UPC decision ordering the payment of damages, costs, or other monetary relief has become enforceable, the successful party may rely on the national enforcement mechanisms of the Member States. Germany is particularly attractive in this respect because of its efficient enforcement system and the concentration of valuable intellectual property assets within its jurisdiction. One enforcement tool that is often overlooked is the seizure (Pfändung) of patents and patent applications owned by the judgment debtor. Where the debtor owns German patents, European patents with German effect, or other patent-related rights, the Munich District Court (Amtsgericht München) can become an important forum for enforcement. In practice, the seizure of an entire patent portfolio may provide substantial leverage even before any realization of value takes place. ##### **Patents as Assets Subject to Enforcement** Patents constitute transferable property rights and therefore form part of the debtor’s assets available for enforcement. German law treats patents as “other property rights” (andere Vermögensrechte) within the meaning of Section 857 of the German Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). This provision states that the rules governing enforcement against claims and other property rights apply correspondingly to rights that are not subject to real-property enforcement. Patents fall squarely within this category. The right to a patent, a patent application, and the patent itself are generally transferable and therefore attachable assets. German courts and commentators have long recognized the availability of enforcement against patent rights under Section 857 ZPO. ##### **Jurisdiction in Munich** Where the patent owner is subject to enforcement proceedings in Germany, an application may be made to the competent enforcement court. In practice, Munich is frequently relevant because the European Patent Office (EPO) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) are located there. The creditor typically applies for a seizure order identifying the patents or patent applications to be seized. Once the order is issued and served, the debtor is prohibited from disposing of the rights. The practical consequence is significant: transfers, assignments, or other dispositions of the patent portfolio become restricted, thereby preserving the asset base for subsequent realization. ##### **The Role of the Rechtspfleger** A notable feature of German enforcement law is that the seizure order is generally issued not by a judge but by a Rechtspfleger. The Rechtspfleger acts as the competent judicial officer within the enforcement court and decides on the application for attachment of the patent rights. From the creditor’s perspective, the procedure is comparatively straightforward. The creditor must present an enforceable title, such as an enforceable UPC decision, and identify the rights to be seized. The Rechtspfleger then examines the formal requirements and may issue the seizure order. Importantly, the proceedings are generally designed to facilitate efficient enforcement. The court does not conduct a detailed valuation exercise before issuing the attachment order. Regarding the enforcement of UPC decisions, it is also to be noted that – if the decision is not drawn up in German – a certified German translation must be provided (cf. Art. II, Section 19(2) Act of International Patent Agreements – IntPatÜG). ##### **No “Überweisung zur Einziehung”** One peculiarity of patent enforcement is that only seizure is available at the initial stage. Unlike ordinary monetary claims, patent rights are not susceptible to a so-called “transfer for collection” (“Überweisung zur Einziehung”) pursuant to Section 853 ZPO which authorises the creditor to enforce and collect a monetary claim owed to the judgment debtor by a third-party debtor (e.g. a bank or employer). This distinction follows from the nature of patent rights. A patent is not a claim that can simply be collected from a third-party debtor. Instead, it is an independent property right that may ultimately be realized through a separate process. As a result, the creditor obtains a seizure of the patent rights but does not automatically acquire the ability to exploit, license, or collect revenues from the patents. The patent remains owned by the debtor unless and until a separate realization measure is ordered. ##### **Realization Requires a Separate Court Order** The seizure itself is only the first step. Monetization of the patent portfolio requires a separate court order governing realization of the attached rights. Section 857(5) ZPO expressly provides that where the right itself may be sold, the court may order such sale. Accordingly, a creditor wishing to convert the attached patents into money must apply for an additional order concerning realization. The court must then determine the appropriate method of disposal. In practice, realization will often occur through an auction or comparable sale process. The objective is to convert the patent rights into proceeds that can be distributed to satisfy the creditor’s claim. The realization stage therefore differs substantially from the attachment stage and requires a closer examination of the economic value of the rights involved. ##### **Is Seizure of an Entire Patent Portfolio Excessive?** A practical question frequently arises where a debtor owns numerous patents: can the creditor seize the entire portfolio even if the value substantially exceeds the amount of the claim? At the seizure stage, German enforcement practice generally does not involve a detailed proportionality analysis concerning the value of the attached patents. The enforcement court typically focuses on whether the rights are attachable and whether the formal requirements for enforcement are satisfied. Consequently, creditors may often obtain attachment of an entire patent portfolio without first demonstrating that the value precisely corresponds to the amount of the claim. The situation changes, however, once realization is sought. At the auction or sale stage, considerations of proportionality become more significant. The court may need to consider whether the realization of all attached patents would produce an outcome that is excessive in light of the amount owed (cf. the general rule under Section 803(1) ZPO). Valuation issues therefore become much more important when the creditor seeks to convert the patents into cash. ##### **Remedies Available to the Debtor** Debtors are not without protection. German enforcement law provides several remedies that may be used to challenge enforcement measures. First, the debtor may file a formal complaint (“Vollstreckungserinnerung”). This remedy addresses procedural errors or defects in the manner in which the enforcement measure has been carried out. The complaint is to be directed at the District Court in Munich. Second, the debtor may bring an enforcement counter action (“Vollstreckungsgegenklage”). This action is directed against the enforceability of the claim itself and may be available where substantive objections have arisen after the judgment (e.g. full or partial payment) or where other grounds exist to challenge enforcement. If the debtor has its seat in Germany, the Regional Court (with a specialized patent division) at the seat is competent for this action; otherwise the action must be brought before the Regional Court Munich (cf. Art. II, Section 19(3) IntPatÜG). The availability of these remedies ensures judicial oversight while preserving the efficiency of the enforcement process. ##### **Conclusion** For successful UPC litigants seeking to enforce monetary awards, Germany offers powerful enforcement mechanisms extending beyond traditional bank-account and receivables attachments. One particularly effective option is the seizure of patents and patent portfolios under Section 857 ZPO. Before the Munich District Court, the Rechtspfleger may issue a seizure order covering valuable patent assets owned by the debtor. At this stage, the court generally does not undertake an extensive inquiry into whether attachment of an entire portfolio is disproportionate. The attachment primarily serves to preserve the assets and prevent their disposal. However, seizure is only the beginning. There is no automatic “Überweisung zur Einziehung” for patents. Any monetization requires a separate court order, typically leading to realization through auction or another sale process. It is at that later stage that valuation and proportionality considerations assume greater importance. As UPC damages awards continue to increase in significance, the ability to attach and ultimately realize patent portfolios may become an increasingly valuable enforcement strategy for judgment creditors throughout Europe. **By** [**Alexander Bothe**](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/de/unser-team/rechtsexperten/dr-alexander-bothe)