Alpinestars v Dainese (CFI, 8 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_472/2024, ORD_64124/2024), Judge-rapporteur Alima Zana of the Milan Local Division dismissed the preliminary objection lodged by Alpinestars S.p.A., a defendant to Dainese S.p.A.’s infringement action on EP 4 072 364, which also covers the Spanish validation. Relying on the CJEU judgment of 25 February 2025 (C-339/22), the division held that, as the court of the defendant’s domicile, it may hear infringement claims concerning a European patent validated in a State that is not party to the Agreement. The reasons on one of the jurisdictional grounds are redacted in the published version.

Question

Does the local division of an Italian defendant’s domicile have jurisdiction over infringement of the Spanish part of the patent, and which arguments may be raised by way of preliminary objection?

Decision

Since the list in Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive, inadmissibility arguments based on abuse of process and the like were rejected (paragraph 9). The UPC is deemed a court of a Member State under Article 71a of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, so the CJEU’s interpretation applies to it (paragraph 11). As the court of the defendant’s domicile, it may rule on infringement of a European patent validated in a State outside the Agreement, a situation Article 34 UPCA does not address (paragraph 12). As Alpinestars is domiciled in Italy and the validity of the Spanish validation is not challenged at this stage, jurisdiction was upheld (paragraphs 13 to 15). A request to extend the period for the statement of defence cannot form part of a preliminary objection (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• A defendant domiciled in a Contracting Member State cannot use a preliminary objection to remove infringement of a non-UPC validation from the division of its domicile, at least where the validity of that validation is not challenged.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 32 and 34

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1, 19.6 and 20.1

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7, 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

CJEU (Grand Chamber), 25 February 2025, C-339/22, Court of Appeal, 2 September 2024 (proceedings UPC_CFI_471/2023), Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Paris Local Division, 21 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_702/2024)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.