Daedalus Prime v MediaTek (Headquarters) (CFI, 17 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_169/2024, ACT_19012/2024, ORD_67603/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (Schilling) dismissed the preliminary objection of MediaTek Inc., a Taiwanese chip supplier sued by Daedalus Prime together with four Xiaomi group companies for infringement of EP 2 792 100. The UPC upheld its international jurisdiction over a defendant based outside the EU on the strength of an alleged harm in a Contracting Member State alone.

Question

Does the UPC have international jurisdiction over a component supplier domiciled outside the EU that is not accused of any direct act within the Contracting Member States?

Decision

Under Art. 31 UPCA, the UPC has jurisdiction wherever a court of a Contracting Member State would have it under Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 71b(2) extends Art. 7(2) to defendants domiciled in a third State (section 1). Following the Court of Appeal, it is enough that the patent has effect in a Contracting Member State and that the alleged damage may occur there (section 2a). Daedalus Prime alleges marketing in Germany, France and the Netherlands of phones containing MediaTek’s chips and knowing participation by MediaTek. Infringement and attribution are for the merits (section 2b). The outcome would be the same under Art. 8(1), given the defendant established in Germany. The Hamburg Division’s competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA is not disputed (section 3), costs follow the main proceedings (section 4).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a non-EU supplier of a component built into products sold in a Contracting Member State can be brought before the UPC on a coherent allegation of harm in that territory alone.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 31, 32(1) and 33(1)(a) and (b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

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

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Yves Prevoo v Visibly, Hamburg Local Division, 18 December 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.