Key takeaways
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms themselves, as these norms must be lawful for the Court to act.
This allows parties to contest jurisdiction by arguing incompatibility of Articles 31 and 32 UPCA with higher-ranking law, including EU primary law.
An objection based on fundamental rights (Art. 47(2) EU-CFR, Art. 6 ECHR) is inadmissible unless it relates to a specific ground listed in the exhaustive Rule 19.1 RoP.
The ruling emphasises that the list in Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive; human rights claims cannot stand alone as preliminary objections unless tied directly to one of the enumerated legal grounds such as lack of jurisdiction.
This preserves the focus of preliminary objection proceedings on issues that can be resolved early without entering into broader substantive rights debates.
The UPC’s jurisdiction (Art. 31, 32 UPCA) is compatible with EU law (Art. 19 TEU, 267 TFEU) as it is a “common court” integrated into the EU judicial system.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the UPC’s “common court” status, noting its direct integration via obligations to apply EU law, make preliminary references to the CJEU, and mechanisms holding Member States liable for breaches.
Articles 22 and 23 UPCA ensure accountability: Member States are jointly liable for EU law breaches by the UPC, and its acts are attributable to each Member State for enforcement under Articles 258–260 TFEU.
The Administrative Committee was able to validly replace the London Central Division seat with Milan by applying Article 87(2) UPCA by analogy to address the “factual impossibility” caused by Brexit.
The Court of Appeal found a legislative gap as Article 87(2) UPCA mentions amendments for conformity with treaties or EU law but not factual impossibility; it applied the provision by analogy to permit the change.
Rights to a lawful judge were not infringed because London would not have had jurisdiction over these cases; moreover, the safeguard of Article 87(3) UPCA’s veto mechanism ensures member state involvement in such amendments.
Court fees under Rule 228 RoP are due for each individual appeal, even if multiple appeals between the same parties raise identical legal questions.
The Court of Appeal held that both fixed and, where applicable, value-based infringement fees must be paid per appeal; similarity of issues does not merge proceedings for fee purposes.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal against the rejection of preliminary objections in infringement actions
Parties
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. (Appellants/Defendants)
vs.
Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust (Respondents/Claimants)
Patent(s)
EP 3 490 258
EP 2 903 267
EP 3 200 463
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19.1 RoP, Rule 228 RoP, Rule 302.3 RoP, Art. 1 UPCA, Art. 7(2) UPCA, Art. 21 UPCA, Art. 22 UPCA, Art. 23 UPCA, Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 32 UPCA, Art. 87(2) UPCA, Art. 87(3) UPCA, Art. 19 TEU, Art. 267 TFEU, Art. 47(2) EU-GRCh, Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 71a & 71b Brussels Ia Regulation
