LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants belong to the same group of companies and where the respective activities of each of the defendnats are related and pursue the same objective, such as R&D, manufacture, sale, and distribution of the same products or the same range of products.

It is not required that every defendant must have a special commercial relationship with the anchor defendant. Otherwise, all cases would systematically have to be brought before the division of the parent company’s seat, which is supported neither by the wording nor the spirit of Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA nor from the objectives of the UPC.

The term “same alleged infringement” refers to the identity of the rights infringed — the alleged reproduction of the same patent claims — regardless of whether the products have different trade names or different forms. It suffices that the products come from the same product range and are alleged to infringe the same patent. The defendants’ narrower interpretation was found contrary to the objectives of the UPC.

The court held that the application to dismiss the infringement action is now moot since the preliminary objection has been dismissed.

Furthermore, R. 19.5 RoP allows the claimant to correct any deficiency within 14 days or to submit observations on the preliminary objection as it was done in the present case. Thus, failure to amend the statement of claim is in any event not subject to any penalty, let alone the dismissal of the infringement action.