Topics: anchor defendant
-
LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026
Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).: The Court held that R. 13.1(i) RoP requires the claimant to provide the relevant facts enabling the Court to assess jurisdiction. It is the Court’s duty to identify and apply the correct law (iura novit curia).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 7, 2026, final order, UPC_CFI_2255/2025
Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated: The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: 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…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 23, 2025, Order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI191/2025 and 192/2025
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.: Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled. In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 4, 2025, Decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_501/2023
Jurisdiction over multiple defendants with commercial relationship and same infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).: Multiple defendants can be sued at the domicile, principal place of business, or place of business of one defendant if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same alleged infringement (“anchor-defendant”). Headnote 1 of the decision clarifies: In the…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.