BMS Innovations v BYD (CFI, 19 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2026 in UPC_CFI_2228/2025 and UPC_CFI_1546/2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division, ruling on BYD’s preliminary objection in BMS Innovations’ infringement action on EP3393001, declined jurisdiction over BYD (U.K.), deferred to the main proceedings the objection concerning jurisdiction over UK acts by the two Chinese parent companies, and refused a reference to the CJEU.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) read with Art. 71b(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 over a UK company accused only of acts in the United Kingdom, on the ground that other defendants are also alleged to infringe there?

Decision

No. Since BMS Innovations alleged no act by BYD (U.K.) in UPC or EU territory, neither Art. 4 nor Art. 7(2) can found jurisdiction (paragraph 7). Art. 8(1) read with Art. 71b(2) does not allow BYD (U.K.) to be joined merely because other defendants allegedly act in the United Kingdom (paragraph 8): the Regulation, read as a whole and in the light of recitals 13, 15 and 16, requires a connection with the court seised (paragraph 9). Without any connection with that territory, BYD (U.K.) could not expect to be sued there, Art. 8(1) being interpreted narrowly (paragraph 10). By contrast, the objection to long-arm jurisdiction over UK acts by BYD Company and BYD Auto is deferred to the main proceedings, in view of the reference pending before the CJEU in Dyson v Dreame (paragraph 12), the condition for the reference sought is not met (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• A non-EU co-defendant cannot be joined before the UPC on the basis of multiple defendants where the acts alleged against it have no connection with UPC territory.
• Practical point: jurisdiction over acts outside the EU by non-European defendants remains uncertain pending the CJEU’s answer.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 22.1, 220.1 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4, 6, 7(2), 8(1) and 71b(2), recitals 13, 15 and 16

Case law cited

Dyson v Dreame, Court of Appeal, 6 March 2026

Related decisions

• BMS Innovations v BYD, 27 May 2026, later order on security for costs.

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.