Topics: jurisdiction
-
Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_899/2025
Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).: By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Defendant in first instance has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and…
4 min Reading time→ -
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 Statement of claim must already set out the facts and legal arguments establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction.: 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…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, January 16, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_702/2024, UPC_CFI_369/2025
Action on Infringement of Swiss part of European patent (non-UPC, Lugano Convention state): In view of the CJEU decision BSH vs Electrolux, the UPC does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Swiss part of the EP (non-UPC state, Lugano Convention). But it can rule on infringement unless there is a reasonable…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_359/2023
The UPC does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated national part of a European Patent in relation to the United Kingdom with erga omnes effect: According to the ECJ’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation)…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement of the UK part of a EuropeanPatent: This applies as far as the infringement action relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit. Whether infringement is given and an injunction and/or other measures can be granted has to be assessed under UK law.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 20, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_149/2024, UPC_CFI_127/2024
In the case of service outside the UPCA Contracting Member States, preliminary objections must be filed within one month of the actual date of service.: R. 271.6 (b) RoP stating that a statement of claim shall in general be deemed to be served on the addressee on the tenth day following posting does not apply…
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 Mannheim, April 4, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_750/2024
Questions of fact and law relevant to jurisdiction and to the merits of the case are not dealt with in the preliminary objection procedure according to R. 19.1 RoP: Questions of fact and law that are relevant both to jurisdiction of the UPCA and to the merits of the case are, in principle, not to…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 18, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_339/2024
Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.: According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b)…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 14, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_437/2024
A preliminary objection based on questions regarding the claimant’s standing to bring an action is inadmissible or at least unfounded.: The Court’s jurisdiction and competence, as referred to in R. 19.1 RoP, is not linked to whether a person bringing an action is ultimately entitled to bring the action or whether it is fully entitled…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, 4 October 2023, order in preliminary objection proceedings, UPC_CFI_252/2023
A lis pendens objection may be subject of a preliminary objection.: The international jurisdiction of the UPC, including objections based on Art. 29 and Art. 30 Regulation Brussels Ibis may be the subject of a preliminary objection under Rule 48 in connection with Rule 19.1(a) RoP. In accordance with Art. 31 UPCA, the international jurisdiction…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, Decision of 20 October 2023, UPC_CFI_214/2023
Withdrawal of opt-out ineffective: dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction: An infringement action and a request for provisional measures were filed based on European Patent EP 3 295 663 (EP’663). The LD Helsinki dismissed both due to lack of jurisdiction of the UPC Courts . EP’663 was opted out on May 12, 2023, and the…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.