Nokia Solutions and Networks v Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (CFI, 3 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division dismisses the preliminary objections raised by several Geely group companies, sued by Nokia Solutions and Networks for infringement of EP 3 799 333 (resource allocation in a mobile system) on account of vehicles implementing 4G/LTE or 5G NR. The order upholds the UPC’s international jurisdiction over the defendants established outside the Member States and the Local Division’s competence over all defendants. It is relevant to actions brought against an entire group organised in brand-based distribution networks.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over companies established in China, the Cayman Islands and the United Kingdom, and may the Mannheim Local Division hear the action against companies to which no act in Germany is attributed?

Decision

For jurisdictional purposes the claimant’s allegations are taken as established: a probability of damage in a Member State suffices under Art. 31 UPCA read with Arts 71b(2) and 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012. Whether the parent companies are infringers is a matter for the merits. For the companies with no alleged act in Germany, Art. 33(1)(a) does not apply and anchoring jurisdiction in another defendant’s act is excluded. Competence instead follows from the second sentence of Art. 33(1)(b): within each brand (Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, smart) one company has its seat in Germany, the companies pursue linked activities with the same purpose and the same infringement is alleged against them. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• The commercial relationship required by Art. 33(1)(b) is read broadly: membership of the same group and coordinated European distribution under one brand are enough.
• A preliminary objection does not stay the time limit for the Statement of Defence (R. 19.6), here 15 January 2026.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 31 and 33(1)(a) and (b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20.2 and 24

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2) and 71b

Case law cited

AYLO v DISH, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Belkin v Koninklijke Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Headwater v Motorola, Munich Local Division, 20 June 2025, ARM v ICPillar, Paris Local Division, 11 April 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024.

Related decisions

• Nokia Solutions v Zhejiang Geely Group, 29 May 2026, later decision under Rule 265.

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.