The debate over the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court has long been reduced to a question of geography: how far can the Court stretch its arm? The real question lies elsewhere: what is a judgment rendered beyond the system's borders actually worth? Jurisdiction is being centralised; effectiveness remains filtered by territorial legal orders.<\/p>\n
Since the Court of Justice's BSH Hausger\u00e4te v Electrolux judgment (C-339\/22, 25 February 2025<\/a>), the UPC has accepted jurisdiction over infringement of non-UPC designations, British, Spanish or Swiss, of a European patent. This so-called long-arm jurisdiction<\/a> is real, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed it. But three limits frame its effect, and they determine the practical value of the judgments.<\/p>\n BSH clarifies the interplay of two rules of Regulation (EU) No 1215\/2012<\/a>. On one side, Article 4(1): a defendant domiciled in a member state may be sued there for infringement, including where the infringement concerns patents of other states and their validity is challenged. On the other, Article 24(4): the validity of patents remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the state of registration.<\/p>\n Three consequences follow. Jurisdiction over infringement survives the invalidity defence; the validity of other member states' patents escapes the court seised, which may stay proceedings where there is a serious risk of annulment; for third-state patents, invalidity may be examined only incidentally and between the parties, without effect on foreign registers. The arm grows longer, but the borders of validity do not move, and every cross-border strategy has to be built within that constraint.<\/p>\n Litigants rushed into the opening, and the divisions followed, methodically. The D\u00fcsseldorf local division accepted jurisdiction over the UK designation in Fujifilm v Kodak (28 January 2025), based on the defendants' German domicile, before dismissing the claims following revocation of the patent for the UPC territory. The Paris local division did the same for Spanish, Swiss and UK designations in IMC Cr\u00e9ations v Mul-T-Lock (21 March 2025), and the Milan local division for a Spanish designation in Dainese v Alpinestars (8 April 2025), each refraining from exercising the reserved validity powers.<\/p>\n The Court of Appeal consolidated the edifice in Kodak v Fujifilm (2 June 2026, UPC_CoA_882\/2025 among others): Article 34 UPCA defines the territorial scope of decisions, it does not cap the Court's jurisdiction, which may rule on infringement of a UK designation applying English law and assess validity between the parties. For defendants domiciled outside the Union, jurisdiction rests on other grounds, notably Article 71b of Regulation 1215\/2012, assessed case by case. The principle is now settled; what remains in dispute is its yield.<\/p>\n First corrective: international jurisdiction does not dispense with proving infringement territory by territory. The Paris local division, in Seoul Viosys v Laser Components (24 April 2025), limited relief to France for want of sufficient evidence for the other territories claimed; the Mannheim local division, in Hurom v NUC Electronics (11 March 2025), dismissed the Turkish limb of the claim. Securing an enlarged forum is one thing; establishing acts of infringement, market by market, is another, and a multi-territorialinfringement action<\/a> must be prepared accordingly, with evidence for each targeted state.<\/p>\n Second corrective: the territorial fragmentation of validity persists. For member states' patents, Article 24(4) reserves annulment to national courts; for third-state patents, the UPC may find invalidity only between the parties, without erga omnes effect. A title may therefore survive before the UPC and later fall before a national judge, or the reverse: an inter partes finding of invalidity does not extinguish the foreign right. This asymmetry feeds multi-jurisdictional patent litigation<\/a> instead of absorbing it: it invites each party to reopen elsewhere what it lost here, as shown by the analysis of parallel litigation around the UPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n For the defendant, this shadow is also a resource. Bringing a nullity action before the national court of the targeted territory, British or Spanish, may persuade the Court to stay that limb of the case, BSH expressly reserving that power where there is a serious risk of annulment. For the proprietor, conversely, the strength of the title on each claimed designation must be audited before the writ is issued: enlarged jurisdiction is worth only as much as the patents it carries, and a national annulment during the proceedings ruins the corresponding limb of the claim.<\/p>\n Third corrective: enforcement. Within the contracting states of theUPCA<\/a>, Article 82 ensures the enforceability of decisions, with the concrete modalities governed by national enforcement law. Beyond, everything depends on the requested legal order: in the United Kingdom, recognition of a UPC judgment falls under common law principles and the assessment of British private international law; in Spain, the reservations attached to Article 24(4) could support grounds for refusal. An injunction covering ten territories is worth, on each of them, only what the local judge is prepared to let it produce, and that assessment belongs to the case strategy from day one, not to the aftermath of the judgment.<\/p>\n The strategic conclusion imposes itself: long-arm jurisdiction is an instrument of pressure and of litigation concentration, not a guarantee of universal enforcement. It weighs on negotiations, widens the base for damages<\/a> and alters forum choice<\/a> ; it replaces neither territory-by-territory proof nor local actions where enforcement so requires, including in matters of imminent infringement<\/a> where the chosen battleground determines the relief obtained.<\/p>\n Yes, where its international jurisdiction is established, notably against a defendant domiciled in a contracting state. It then applies English law to the infringement and may assess validity only between the parties, without touching the UK register.<\/p>\n BSH reasons on Article 4(1) of Regulation 1215\/2012, hence on a defendant domiciled in a member state. For defendants domiciled outside the Union, jurisdiction rests on other grounds, notably Article 71b of the Regulation, whose application is examined case by case.<\/p>\n Not automatically. Outside the UPCA contracting states, enforcement requires recognition of the judgment by the local legal order, under its own rules of private international law. That is the main practical limit of long-arm jurisdiction.<\/p>\n No. For third states such as the United Kingdom, the Court may find invalidity only incidentally and between the parties. Erga omnes annulment remains the monopoly of the courts of the state of registration.<\/p>\n Dhenne Avocats litigates these questions of international jurisdiction before the Unified Patent Court<\/a> and coordinates the UPC, national and non-European strands of disputes, as part of its dedicated UPC<\/a>. Talk to us<\/a>.<\/p>\nWhat BSH decided, and what it preserved<\/h2>\n
How the UPC's divisions received it<\/h2>\n
Jurisdiction accepted, relief conditioned<\/h2>\n
The validity shadow<\/h2>\n
Enforcement, the reality test<\/h2>\n
Key takeaways<\/h2>\n
\n
Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n
Can the UPC find infringement of the UK part of a European patent?<\/h3>\n
Does BSH also apply against defendants domiciled outside the Union?<\/h3>\n
Is a UPC decision covering a non-UPC territory enforceable there?<\/h3>\n
Can the UPC revoke a patent for a third state?<\/h3>\n