The UPC Demonstrates Its Wide-Reaching Authority

The UPC’s Position on Its Jurisdiction

The UPC nonetheless upheld its jurisdiction to adjudicate infringement in the United Kingdom, even though a counterclaim for revocation of the German part of the European patent was pending and the validity of the UK part was being contested.

Legal Basis Invoked by the UPC

The decision explains that under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled is “universal.” It may therefore extend to infringements of the European patent committed in any state where it has been validated.

This provision allows the patent holder to bring all infringement claims before a single court and obtain comprehensive redress in one instance. If the alleged infringer raises a nullity exception regarding national parts of the European patent validated in states other than that of the seized court, this does not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Brussels I bis Regulation and UPC Agreement

Article 31 of the UPC Agreement provides that the UPC’s international jurisdiction is determined in line with the Brussels I bis Regulation. Articles 71bis to 71quinquies of the Brussels I bis Regulation incorporate the UPC as a “common court” within the existing jurisdiction framework.

Article 71bis establishes that the UPC, as a common court, is treated as a court of a Member State for disputes involving European patents. Article 71ter(1) specifies that the UPC is competent whenever, under the Brussels I bis Regulation, a national court of a Member State would have jurisdiction.

This means that for defendants domiciled in a Member State, all grounds of jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation also apply to the UPC, along with relevant CJEU case law.

Connection with the BSH vs. Electrolux Case

It is worth noting that the Düsseldorf Local Division awaited the opinion of the Advocate General in the CJEU case BSH v. Electrolux (C-339/22), for which the CJEU issued a ruling on 25 February 2025, before rendering its decision.

Context of the BSH v. Electrolux Case

In BSH v. Electrolux, the CJEU was asked whether a Swedish court was competent to decide on the infringement of a European patent validated in countries other than Sweden, including some outside the EU, such as Turkey.

Electrolux challenged the validity of the national parts of the European patent and argued that under Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, a Swedish court could not hear infringement claims regarding parts validated in other states.

CJEU’s Position on Jurisdiction

The CJEU held that a validity exception under Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation does not strip the court seized of jurisdiction over infringement, even if courts of other Member States have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on validity in their territory.

Moreover, if the court seized of the infringement case believes there is a non-negligible and reasonable possibility that the patent may be declared invalid by another Member State’s court, it may stay proceedings concerning that state.

Third Countries and Inter Partes Effect

The decision also clarified that Article 24(4) does not apply to courts of third countries (i.e., states that are not EU Member States). Thus, it does not confer jurisdiction on a third-country court to assess the validity of a national part of a European patent in that jurisdiction.

Therefore, if a court of a Member State is seized based on Article 4(1) regarding infringement in a third country, and validity is raised as a defense, that court retains its jurisdiction—unless limited by other international or bilateral agreements.

The ruling, however, has an inter partes effect only, meaning it does not affect the existence or content of the patent in the third country concerned.

Under Article 31 of the UPC Agreement and Articles 71bis and 71ter(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the CJEU’s reasoning also applies to the UPC.