Summary of the Five UPC Decisions

Court of Appeal

March 13, 2026

00 : 17 – 17 : 35

Whether the UPC has jurisdiction to hear patent infringement cases where defendants are located outside UPC territory

• Keeks sued for patent infringement in Paris local division
• Defendants challenged jurisdiction regarding alleged infringements in Switzerland, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland

• Article 33.1 of the UPCA
• Article 7.2 of Brussels 1 Recast Regulation

• Long-arm jurisdiction is generally limited to courts where the defendant is domiciled
• When suing based on the place of damage (Article 33.1A), the UPC is confined to infringements within UPC territory
• Article 71B.3 can allow jurisdiction over non-EU damage only if: (1) defendants have non-trivial assets in UPC member states, and (2) there is sufficient connection with member state, both must be established in the statement of claim
• The Paris local division could not apply French national law provisions (Article 14 of French Civil Code) as the UPC is not a national court

Clarifies limitations on UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction and procedural requirements for asserting international jurisdiction

Court of Appeal

March 16, 2026

17 : 40 – 25 : 44

Whether an applicant fulfilled its duty of disclosure when requesting an ex parte seizure order and proportionality of ex parte measures

Ecovax requested an ex parte inspection order at Roborock’s trade fair stand (Berlin IFA 2025) but failed to disclose that Roborock was directly selling products on EU markets via Amazon

Rule 192.3 of ROP

• The omission was material and distorted central facts essential to the court’s assessment
• Such omissions cannot be rectified by later submissions, it is too late
• The proportionality principle requires choosing the least onerous measures; less intrusive means (e.g., test purchase via Amazon) were available
• The order granting the inspection was revoked

Establishes strict disclosure duties for applicants and emphasizes proportionality in ex parte proceedings

Court of Appeal

March 16, 2026

25 : 49 – 32 : 56

(1) Whether the Paris local division could defer a preliminary objection to the main proceedings; (2) Whether the UPC has jurisdiction to determine FRAND licensing terms for standard essential patents

Sun brought two infringement actions with three claims:

• (A1) infringement,
• (A2) determination of FRAND terms,
• (A3) injunction conditional on FRAND offer; Vivo contested UPC jurisdiction over FRAND determination

Rules 102.1 of ROP and 331 of ROP

• Case Management: The Court of First Instance has discretion to either decide preliminary objections promptly or defer them to main proceedings (Rules 102.1 and 331 ROP)
• The Paris local division did not misuse its discretion in deferring; FRAND determination (A2) is merely incidental and dependenton the main infringement claim
• If the patent is found non-infringed, there is no need to examine the FRAND claim
• Therefore, A2 and the conditional injunction (A3) are not independent claims requiring separate jurisdiction

Clarifies that FRAND claims are ancillary to infringement proceedings and allow efficient case management

Brussels Local Division

March 18, 2026

33 : 22 – 41 : 40

Whether to order the applicant (LABS, based in Costa Rica) to provide security for the defendants’ legal costs

Article 69.4 of UPC Agreement and Rule 158.1 of ROP

• Enforcement burden: Is enforcement of a cost order unduly burdensome in the applicant’s home state?
  1. Costa Rica has a two-stage recognition and enforcement process (8-19 months + 24-26 months)
  2. The division found this not unduly burdensomewithout a comparative standard
• Legitimate concern: Is there legitimate concern about cost recoverability based on the applicant’s financial situation?
  1. Court considers only the applicant’s (not parent company’s) financial means
  2. Long enforcement timelines should be factored into financial risk assessment

Security of €600,000 (50% of the €1.2 million ceiling) ordered, based on the applicant’s financial situation and legitimate concerns

Establishes criteria for assessing security for costs in cross-border disputes

Paris Local Division

March 23, 2026

41 : 42 – end

Interpretation of Article 33.1B UPCA

• Article 33.1B UPCA
• Articles 25 and 26 UPCA

• Commercial relationship:Assessed loosely to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions
  • Established when all defendants belong to the same group with related activities (R&D, manufacturing, selling same product range)
  • Not every defendant needs direct individual relationship with anchoring defendant
• Same infringement: Interpreted as infringement of the same patent claim only
  • Does NOT require the same allegedly infringing product or method
  • Sufficient that products are from the same range and infringe the same patent

Facilitates group litigation against multinational corporate structures while preventing procedural abuse