Key takeaways
The UPC is considered a court of a Member State.
The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014 (“Brussels Ibis Regulation”). The interpretation provided by the CJEU applies to the UPC as if it were a national court (see Headnote 1).
The UPC holds “universal” jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Contracting Member States including infringement cases for European patents validated in non-UPC member states.
In light of the CJEU decision in case C-339/2022 issued on 25 February 2025, the UPC Milan Local Division as the court of the domicile of the defendant has “universal” jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries, such as Spain (so called “long-arm jurisdiction”). This is supported by Art. 71b of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which applies to disputes over European patents regardless of whether they are validated in contracting State. Moreover, Art. 34 UPCA does not contain any regulation re. European patents that are validated outside the territory of the UPC well as before the UPC, even in states that do not take part in the UPC (see Local Division in Fujifilm v. Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023).
The UPC does not lose that jurisdiction merely because, as its defence, that defendant challenges the validity of the national part of that European patent.
Division
Local Division Milan
UPC number
UPC_CFI_792/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action – Preliminary objections
Parties
Claimant (Respondent in the preliminary objections): Dainese spa
Defendant (Applicant in the preliminary objections): Alpinestars S.P.A.
Patent(s)
EP 4072364
EP 3498117
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP
Art. 32 UPCA
Art. 4(1) Brussels I bis Regulation
Art. 71a Brussels I bis Regulation
Art. 71b Brussels I bis Regulation
Art. 34 UPCA
