UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Matthew Howell, Jamie Rowlands, Greg Ward and James Ward, Haseltine Lake Kempner
The Düsseldorf Local Division disagreed with Kodak, ruling that it did have jurisdiction to decide on infringement of the UK part of the pat - ent, citing Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. As all the defendants were domiciled in Germany (an EU member state), pursuant to Article 4 (1) they could be sued in the courts of that mem - ber state. The UPC is deemed to be a common court with equivalent jurisdiction to that of an EU member state under Article 71a of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, meaning that the defendants could all be sued in the UPC. The Division further noted the February 2024 opinion of the Advocate General in BSH Haus - geräte GmbH v Electrolux AB that the jurisdiction of the courts of an EU member state in which the defendant is domiciled under Article 4 (1) is uni - versal and thus may extend to the infringement of a European patent in all the states for which it has been granted, enabling the patent holder to obtain comprehensive relief from a single forum. Thus, the Division held that “If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdic - tion to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United King - dom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case”. The Division acknowledged, however, that the UPC had no jurisdiction to decide on the valid - ity of the UK part of the patent, as jurisdiction for questions of validity is reserved for the court of the state in which a patent is granted or vali -
dated. As noted above, this decision pre-dates the CJEU BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB decision, which would explain why the Divi - sion took a different approach to the question of validity to the Mul-T-Lock decision discussed directly below, which post-dates the CJEU deci - sion. Mul-T-Lock v IMC Creations In this order (UPC_CFI_702/2024), delivered on 21 March 2025, the UPC’s Paris Local Division held that the UPC has jurisdiction to decide not only on infringement of UK and Spanish national validations of a European patent by a French company, but also on infringement of a Swiss national validation of the patent by a Swiss com - pany. IMC Creations sued the French company Mul- T-Lock France and the Swiss company Mul-T- Lock Switzerland for infringement of European patent No EP4153830, relating to a lock, which was validated as a unitary patent and as national patents in the UK, Spain and Switzerland. The Mul-T-Lock companies filed a preliminary objection contesting the UPC’s jurisdiction over the claims of infringement of the national valida - tions in the UK, Spain and Switzerland. In its sub - missions, Mul-T-Lock acknowledged the CJEU’s decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB and the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision in Fujifilm v Kodak, but requested that the UPC decline its jurisdiction to rule on infringement of the national validations of the patent in the states that are not party to the UPCA agreement, namely the UK, Spain and Switzerland. The Paris Local Division rejected Mul-T-Lock’s arguments, finding that it had jurisdiction over the infringement action due to the domicile in France of one of the defendants. Citing the CJEU
144 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook