UPC Court of Appeal’s ruling on Adobe et al. v Keeex: “long arm jurisdiction” cannot be based on the locus commissi delicti
26 Apr 2026
Unified Patent Court, Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026
Following the notorious CJEU’s ruling in the BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux case of 25 February 2025, UPC local divisions have since claimed their jurisdiction even in relation to disputes concerning the infringement of national portions of European patents valid in countries outside the UPC system (e.g. in Spain or the United Kingdom).
The UPC Court of Appeal’s ruling of last 13 March provides important clarifications regarding the limits of this approach.
Indeed, in assessing the court of first instance’s international jurisdiction – given that all the defendants were based outside the EU or in a country that could not be regarded as a Contracting Member State of the UPC Agreement – the Court rejected the interpretation offered by the Paris Local Division, according to which the CJEU’s conclusions in the aforementioned BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux case would apply “regardless of whether the criterion for jurisdiction is established on the basis of Article 4 or Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 1215/2012”, which allows the jurisdiction of the court seized to be based, respectively, on the defendant’s domicile and on the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. Indeed, as the CoA pointed out, according to the CJEU case law, UPC’s jurisdiction, when based on Article 7(2), cannot be intended other than limited to UPC territory. Indeed, pursuant to Article 71(b)(3) of Regulation (EU) No. 2012/1215, UPC’s jurisdiction in relation to disputes where the infringement of a patent has caused damage outside the European Union requires the Court’s jurisdiction for damage occurring, in primis, within EU territory. Besides, the provision requires the presence of assets belonging to the defendant within one of the Member States, as well as a ‘sufficient connection’ between the dispute and that Member State.
In light of the foregoing, the Court therefore considered the defendant’s submissions insufficient to justify UPC’s international jurisdiction, as the Statement of claims entirely lacked any reference to the grounds justifying both the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction to the national portions of the patent effective in countries outside the UPC system, as well as the conditions for the application of Article 71b(3) of Regulation (EU) No. 2012/1215.
Ultimately, the ruling appears to bring the UPC’s long arm jurisdiction within precise “limits of reasonableness”, thereby helping to (re)define its actual scope with greater legal certainty.
Giovanni Volpi
