Confirmation and extension of the concept of “long arm jurisdiction” of the UPC

2. The concrete implementation by the UPC where the defendant is domiciled in a UPCA Member State

Since BSH v Electrolux, the UPC has clearly assumed this “long arm jurisdiction” in several emblematic cases.

In IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock (UPC_CFI_702/2024, decision of March 21, 2025), the Paris Local Division accepted jurisdiction to hear alleged infringement acts relating to the Spanish, Swiss and UK designations of a European patent, since the defendant was domiciled in France. The decision also illustrates the limits of this approach: where there was a reasonable and non-negligible risk of invalidity of the Swiss part of the patent, the UPC refused to rule on Swiss infringement in the absence of steps taken by the proprietor before the Swiss courts.

The same logic can be found in Dainese v Alpinestars (UPC_CFI_792/2024, decision of April 8, 2025), where the Milan Local Division affirmed its jurisdiction to rule on the alleged infringement of the Spanish designation of a European patent, the defendant being domiciled in Italy.

The decisions TGI Sport v AIM Sport Development (UPC_CoA_169/2025, decision of April 11, 2025) and Syngenta v Sumi Agro (UPC_CFI_566/2024, decision of April 14 2025) confirm, for their part, the willingness of the UPC (and of its Court of Appeal) to allow the extension of the territorial scope of pending disputes to non-UPCA States, in particular where such extension results directly from the case law developments arising from BSH v Electrolux. The stated objective is to avoid irreconcilable decisions and the multiplication of parallel national proceedings.

Finally, in HL Display v Black Sheep (UPC_CFI_386/2024 and UPC_CFI_610/2024, October 10, 2025), the Hague Local Division recognised its jurisdiction for all national designations of the European patent (UPCA Member States, EU States not party to the UPCA, Lugano Convention Member States and third States), while rigorously applying the distinction arising from BSH v Electrolux regarding the examination of validity.

3. Extension to defendants not domiciled in a UPCA Member State: clarification from Hurom v NUC Electronics

The recent decision of the Mannheim Local Division in Hurom v NUC Electronics (UPC_CFI_162/2024, decision of October 2, 2025) provides an essential clarification: the lessons from BSH v Electrolux are not limited to defendants domiciled in a UPCA Member State, nor even within the European Union.

In this case, involving two Korean companies, the UPC held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 71b(2) and 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, considering that where decisive acts giving rise to the alleged infringements in non-UPCA States (in this case Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom) are attributable to a defendant, the UPC may have jurisdiction over that defendant on the basis of Article 7(2), regardless of whether or not that defendant is domiciled in the European Union.

Indeed, in this case Hurom v NUC Electronics, the jurisdiction of the Mannheim Local Division does not arise from the domicile of the defendant, which is established in Korea, but from the place of the alleged causal events. Pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU in the Wintersteiger decision (C-523/10, April 19, 2012), the UPC considered that the place where the decisive acts giving rise to the infringement occur constitutes an autonomous criterion of international jurisdiction. Since these acts were, according to the claimant, connected to Germany (as the products were shipped from Germany), the Mannheim Local Division held that it had jurisdiction to hear the alleged infringements relating to national designations of the patent located in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, irrespective of the domicile of the defendant.

By way of reminder, in the Wintersteiger decision, the CJEU clarifies the interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation by explaining that in the event of a harmful event, the claimant may bring proceedings before the court of the place where the damage occurs or the court of the place of the causal event (place of the act giving rise to the damage).

It should be noted that the solution adopted in Hurom v NUC Electronics does not imply, however, that a Local Division of the UPC would have jurisdiction in the absence of any factual link with its territory: if the causal events of the infringement were located exclusively in third States, Article 7(2) would not, by itself, make it possible to establish the jurisdiction of the seized Local Division.

Although the claims were ultimately dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence of infringing acts under the relevant national laws, the decision nevertheless constitutes a clear confirmation of the potential breadth of the international jurisdiction of the UPC.