CoA, March 13, 2026, Order on Preliminary Objections Concerning International Jurisdiction, UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, UPC_CoA_925/2025

The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish the UPC’s jurisdiction. That applies especially where the claimant seeks to extend the case beyond UPC territory and relies on Article 71b(3) Brussels Ia. Later-filed exhibits cannot cure an insufficient pleading on jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that where the UPC’s international jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) Brussels Ia as the court of the place where the damage occurred or may occur, that jurisdiction is limited to damage within UPC territory. The Paris Local Division therefore erred in using Article 7(2) to uphold jurisdiction for alleged infringements in Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway and Poland.

The Court left open the broader substantive reach of Article 71b(3), but held that Keeex had in any event failed to plead the necessary facts, including the presence of assets of sufficient value within UPC territory connected to the dispute. The Court also expressly held that the UPC, as a common court, cannot rely on Article 14 of the French Civil Code. On that basis, the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance order insofar as it had accepted jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of the patent.