SVF Holdco v ICPillar (CFI, 11 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_495/2023, ACT_596432/2023, ORD_18817/2024), the Paris Local Division (Lignières, presiding and judge-rapporteur, Gillet, Rinkinen) dismissed the preliminary objections to jurisdiction raised by ARM Limited, several Arm group companies and SVF Holdco Limited in the infringement action on EP 3 000 239 brought by ICPillar LLC. One defendant domiciled in France, Arm France SAS, was enough to found the local division’s competence over defendants of the same group, wherever they are seated.

Question

Does the Paris Local Division have competence under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over several defendants of which only one is domiciled in France?

Decision

Yes. The objections, lodged within the Rule 19.1 RoP time limit, challenge only internal competence (Rule 19.1(b) RoP), not international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA. With one defendant domiciled in France, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA applies regardless of where the others are seated, subject to two conditions: a commercial relationship between the defendants and the same alleged infringement. A commercial relationship implies a certain quality and intensity but must not be read too narrowly, so as to avoid parallel actions and irreconcilable decisions. Membership of the same group with related commercial activities pursuing the same aim is enough. SVF Holdco, a group member until 2018 and a shareholder until August 2023, is included. The Arm website, which offers the accused products and lists contacts in several of the defendants’ countries, shows at this stage the same alleged infringement. Costs are reserved to the main proceedings and an appeal lies (Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, Rule 220.2 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a single subsidiary domiciled in the local division’s Member State allows the other group companies to be sued there, provided the alleged infringement is the same.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31, Art. 33(1)(b) and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1, 20.1 and 220.2

Case law cited

Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division, 29 September 2023

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.