IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock France (CFI, 21 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_702/2024, ORD_11997/2025), the Paris Local Division (Judges Lignières, presiding, Gillet, rapporteur, and Lopes) rejected the preliminary objection by Mul-T-Lock France and Mul-T-Lock Suisse challenging the UPC’s jurisdiction over IMC Créations’ infringement action insofar as it concerns the Spanish, Swiss and British parts of EP 4 153 830, a patent with unitary effect. It applies the CJEU’s judgment of 25 February 2025 in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22).

Question

May the UPC, seised at a defendant’s domicile, rule on infringement of the national parts of a European patent in states that are not party to the Agreement?

Decision

The UPC, treated as a court of a Member State, applies EU law as interpreted by the CJEU (paragraph 19). Under BSH, the court of the defendant’s domicile keeps jurisdiction over infringement where validity is challenged before the courts of the granting state, and may stay. For a third state, it may rule on validity with inter partes effect (paragraphs 12 to 18). The UPC therefore has jurisdiction over the Spanish and Swiss parts, the latter through the Lugano Convention, staying if need be, and over the British part, subject to inter partes effect (paragraphs 20 and 21). The Paris Division is competent because one defendant is domiciled in France (paragraph 22), and jurisdiction cannot depend on the defendant’s procedural strategy (paragraph 24). The defendants must file their defence by 28 April 2025, costs are reserved.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an action before the UPC at the domicile of a defendant established in a Member State may cover the Spanish, Swiss and British parts of a European patent.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 20, 31 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20.2 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4, 24(4) and 71a

Other provisions

Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, Arts 22(4) and 25

Case law cited

FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025 (relied on by the defendants)

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.