Nixu FL IP Protection v Infoblox (CFI, 8 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 8 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_360/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division partly allows the preliminary objection on international jurisdiction raised by Infoblox Inc., a US company sued by Nixu FL IP Protection alongside two German-domiciled defendants for infringement of claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 in Germany, France, Finland and the United Kingdom. The action against Infoblox Inc. is dismissed as inadmissible for the UK part of the patent only. The order clarifies how anchor defendants under Art. 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 operate for a national part outside the UPCA territory.

Question

Can co-defendants domiciled in Germany bring a non-European company before the UPC for infringement of national parts in UPCA states and in the United Kingdom?

Decision

Art. 7(2) of the Regulation, which the claimant may invoke in its reply, covers only acts committed in UPCA states (paragraphs 21 to 24). The two German companies, sued at their domicile, anchor the claim for Germany, France and Finland, without any need to examine the plausibility of their acts in each country (paragraphs 25 to 33). For the United Kingdom, the place and effect of the acts remain relevant: absent any allegation of infringement committed jointly with an anchor defendant there, the close connection is lacking (paragraphs 34 to 38).

Key points for practice

• A co-defendant’s domicile in a UPCA state suffices to anchor claims across the UPCA territory, but a non-UPCA national part requires facts specific to that territory.
• Practical point: to reach the UK part against a non-European defendant, the claimant must plead acts committed jointly with the anchor defendant in the United Kingdom.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31 and 73(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1(i), 19.1(a), 21.1, 220.1(a) and 224.1(a)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 8(1), 63(1), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026, Keeex v Adobe, Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025), Dyson v Dreame, Hamburg Local Division, 7 April 2026, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025

Related decisions

• Nixu FL IP Protection v Infoblox, 10 June 2026, order of the same judge-rapporteur requiring 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.