Long-arm jurisdiction

Definition : Long-arm jurisdiction

Long-arm jurisdiction is a concept originating in US law. It refers to the power of a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant established outside its territory (in another State) where that defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum, such that being sued there does not offend the requirements of a fair trial. It is implemented through long-arm statutes, laws conferring this extraterritorial jurisdiction. By extension, the expression now refers, more broadly, to any jurisdiction projected beyond the borders of the forum. Applied to the Unified Patent Court, the term refers to the UPC's ability to hear cases concerning acts or parts of patents located outside its territory, or even outside the Union. Two decisions illustrate the concept: on the one hand, the CJEU's judgment in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux of 25 February 2025 held that the court of the State of the defendant's domicile (jurisdiction based on Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation) may rule on the infringement of patents of other Member States, and even of patents of third States, the assessment of the validity of the latter having effect only inter partes. On the other hand, the UPC itself, in decisions of 2025 (notably Fujifilm v Kodak), exercised such long-arm jurisdiction over the non-UPC part of a European patent, in particular the British part.

Long-arm jurisdiction : l’essentiel

In patent matters, the question of long-arm jurisdiction has been renewed by the Court of Justice's judgment in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux of 25 February 2025. A court of a Member State hearing an infringement action against a defendant domiciled in its territory may thus rule on foreign patents, including where their validity is contested. Likewise, the Unified Patent Court has accepted jurisdiction over parts of European patents validated in non-contracting States. The choice of forum therefore becomes a decision with worldwide reach. See our page UPC attorney, our entry multi-jurisdictional patent litigation and the case law of the Court of Justice.

La portée de cette compétence est désormais soumise à la Cour de justice. Par ordonnance du 6 mars 2026 rendue dans l’affaire Dyson v Dreame (UPC_CoA_789/2025 et UPC_CoA_813/2025), la cour d’appel de la JUB a posé quatre questions préjudicielles portant notamment sur sa compétence à l’égard de sociétés établies dans un État tiers et sur les mesures provisoires visant des produits commercialisés dans plusieurs États membres. Il s’agit du premier renvoi préjudiciel de la juridiction.