UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Matthew Howell, Jamie Rowlands, Greg Ward and James Ward, Haseltine Lake Kempner
The Long-Arm Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court The Unified Patent Court (UPC) provides a cen - tralised forum for resolving disputes related to European patents with unitary effect (unitary pat - ents) and classical European patents that are not opted out of its jurisdiction. One aspect of the UPC’s jurisdiction that has been the subject of much speculation is its “long-arm” reach, that is, whether it has power to decide on cases that extend beyond the bor - ders of its 18 (at the time of writing) contracting member states into other European jurisdictions such as the UK and Spain. Over the first few months of 2025, a number of decisions that begin to define the UPC’s long- arm jurisdiction have been issued by the UPC. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the legal foundations of the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, before discussing the Court of Jus - tice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB and its implications. The authors also review some pertinent UPC decisions and discuss practical considerations for litigants. Legal basis and sources of law The UPC was established by the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), which codifies its competence over unitary patents and classical European patents that are not opted out. The UPCA also lists the sources of law on which the UPC must base its decisions. Foremost among these is European Union law (Article 24 (1)(a) UPCA). Under the UPCA, the UPC “shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy” (Article 20 UPCA) and “The international jurisdiction of the Court shall
be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 or, where applicable, on the basis of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Conven - tion)” (Article 31 UPCA). Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, as amended to accommodate the UPC (“the Brussels I Recast Regulation”), is particularly pertinent to the UPC’s reach. Article 4 (1) stipulates that “per - sons domiciled in a[n EU] Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State”, while Article 24 (4) reserves jurisdiction over issues concerning the validity of patents to the court of the EU mem - ber state in which the patent was registered. For classical European patents (which are validated as national patents in the European Patent Con - vention (EPC) member states in which protection is desired once granted), the court of each EU member state in which the patent has been vali - dated has exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the validity of the national validation in that member state. A similar provision exists in the Lugano Convention, whose signatories include all current EU member states and other states such as Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, but not the UK. Perhaps most importantly, Article 71a of the Brussels I Recast Regulation establishes the UPC as a common court having equivalent juris - diction to a national court of an EU member state when it exercises jurisdiction in matters falling within the scope of that Regulation. Further, Arti - cle 71b could be interpreted as extending the jurisdiction of the UPC to defendants who are not domiciled in an EU member state, and to damage arising outside the EU from an infringe - ment of a European patent that gives rise to damage within the EU.
141 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook