BMS Innovations v BYD Company (CFI, 14 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 14 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_2070/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division rules on the preliminary objection to international jurisdiction raised by three BYD group companies in BMS Innovations’ infringement action on EP 2 937 706. He defers to the merits the question of jurisdiction for the United Kingdom over the two Chinese companies, which are linked to the EU-based defendants, but declines UPC jurisdiction over BYD (U.K.), whose alleged acts are confined to UK territory. He refuses any reference to the CJEU.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction, under Art. 4, 7(2), 8(1) and 71b of Regulation 1215/2012, over acts committed in the United Kingdom by Chinese companies and by a UK company?

Decision

The objection is admissible and no hearing is needed given the written submissions (Rules 20.1 and 264 RoP). For BYD Company and BYD Auto, the UK claims are closely connected with those against the EU-based defendants, including BYD France, and sufficiently substantiated at this stage (the bydeurope.com website, notices on the French website, shipments to the Netherlands, an address shared with BYD Europe): the question is deferred to the merits, a decision open to appeal with leave (Rule 220.2). For BYD (U.K.), domiciled in the United Kingdom and whose alleged acts are confined there, neither Art. 4, nor Art. 7(2), nor Art. 8(1) confers jurisdiction. That decision is appealable under Rule 220.1. The Division relies on Valeo v Bosch on appealability and finds a CJEU reference unnecessary.

Key points for practice

• A UK defendant whose alleged acts are confined to the United Kingdom cannot be brought before the UPC merely through its link with EU-based co-defendants.
• For third-state defendants linked to European defendants, the judge may defer jurisdiction for the United Kingdom to the merits, subject to appeal with leave.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31 and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20.1, 21.1, 22.1, 220.1, 220.2 and 264

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4(1), 7(2), 8(1), 71a and 71b(2)

Case law cited

Valeo v Bosch, Court of Appeal, 11 February 2026

Related decisions

• BMS Innovations v BYD, 27 May 2026, later order in the same proceedings.

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.