EMEA: UPC's Long Arm Jurisdiction

In brief

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) entering into force has brought a major shift in European patent litigation. Recent case law demonstrates its ability to issue decisions that may reach beyond the borders of its participating states. This phenomenon, referred to as “long-arm jurisdiction”, is now raising questions about the scope of UPC jurisdiction and challenges the traditional approach to such concept. A number of recent cases across Europe (including in non UPC countries) demonstrate the potential for this developing jurisprudence to significantly reshape patent litigation strategies across Europe. In this first in a series of articles we look at the underlying procedural framework and history behind the development of the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction. In subsequent articles we will consider how national patent litigation strategies are being reshaped by this evolving jurisprudence.

In more detail

The UPC

Back in 2023, after more than a decade of cooperation, the EU patent landscape changed with the introduction of the patent with unitary effect (Unitary Patent) and the UPC. To reshape the patent ecosystem, different sources of law were approved (and/or amended) in order to capture the new reality that would then apply, mainly: the UPC Agreement, the European Patent Convention (EPC), EU Regulation 1257/2012 creating a European patent with unitary effect, and EU Regulation No 1260/2012 laying down the translation arrangements for Unitary Patents.

In this context, the UPC system introduced two noteworthy amendments:

• The creation of the Unitary Patent, a title providing uniform protection in all participating states.
• The establishment of a single jurisdiction for litigation within Europe. Depending on the scenario, the UPC might have jurisdiction to substantiate proceedings regarding: (i) European patents and Unitary patents; and (ii) patent infringement and revocation.

The UPC aims, among others, to complement the European Patent Office’s (EPO) centralized grant procedure with a unified enforcement mechanism¹. It now offers uniform protection across all participating EU Member States, allowing patent holders to enforce their rights through a single procedure without the need for multiple national proceedings.

As of now, the UPC Agreement is in force in 18 EU Member States. Six additional EU Member States (Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece and Cyprus) have signed the agreement but have not yet to ratified it. Three EU Member States (Spain, Poland and Croatia) have not signed the agreement and are not part of the UPC system².

The emerging concept of long-arm jurisdiction reflects the UPC’s potential to adjudicate disputes involving countries that have not signed and/or ratified the UPC Agreement. This development, in connection to European patents, challenges the traditional concept of a national court’s jurisdiction. In order to understand how this extended jurisdiction operates in practice, it is essential to assess the implications of recent case law and its impact on cross-border patent litigation, particularly for countries that are not part of the UPC system.

At a glance: case law behind the UPC´S long-arm jurisdiction

The concept of long-arm jurisdiction was anticipated in earlier EU case law and has since evolved through a series of UPC decisions. In 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that cross-border provisional measures may be available in appropriate circumstances, confirming that a court can issue temporary measures like an injunction, even without full authority over the entire case³.

Building on this decision, the UPC has addressed cross-border disputes in various recent decisions, notably during 2025. In particular, following these decisions, existing case law now suggests that the UPC may extend jurisdiction beyond countries participating in the UPC, in the following circumstances:

• If the defendant is domiciled in a UPC participating state⁴, the UPC may hear infringement actions concerning European patents validated in any country (not opted-out), including non-UPC participating states⁵, relying on Article 24(4) Brussels I bis⁶.
• To assess the validity of European patents within UPC territory (not opted-out). While its decisions are binding within the countries part of the UPC system, in certain cases (i.e., via counterclaim) the UPC could be entitled to evaluate whether a European patent is valid in non-UPC countries, which shall only have validity inter partes, without altering national registrations⁷.
• Where a connected defendant is located within a participating state and has reaffirmed its ability to consider validity as a defense, again with effects limited to the parties⁸ (Lugano Convention⁹, Articles 22(4), 25).
• In multi-designation infringement claims covering both UPC and non-UPC territories¹⁰.
• In scenarios involving non-EU manufacturers where the presence of an authorized EU representative provided a sufficient link to grant pan‑UPC preliminary relief, with practical effects potentially extending to at least one non‑UPC territory when justified by the connection to the EU market¹¹.

Additionally, the UPC case law has confirmed the availability of remedies such as damages and injunctions even when the asserted European patents include designations in non-UPC countries, relying on Articles 4(1) and 71b Brussels I bis¹².

Through the development of this early case law, the scope of the UPC’s jurisdiction has gradually become clearer. Step by step, the UPC has asserted competence over scenarios that were initially uncertain, particularly in cross-border disputes involving traditional European patents. This evolving interpretation is shaping a more expansive and practical understanding of the UPC’s role in European patent litigation.

Unresolved questions around UPC enforcement

The UPC’s recent decisions show that its jurisdiction may extend beyond UPC participating states. This development has prompted discussions about the scope and coordination of patent enforcement across jurisdictions, particularly those that did not sign or ratify the UPC Agreement.

In particular, the recognition and execution of UPC decisions in non-UPC countries may involve practical complexities, such as the following:

• Differences in national procedures can create uncertainty, particularly in urgent matters such as interim measures or the enforcement of final decisions (e.g., calculation of damages). These situations may require additional coordination or legal steps depending on the jurisdiction involved.
• UPC jurisdiction to rule on European patents’ validity via counterclaim might create contradictory decisions, give rise to subsequent patent invalidity proceedings and have an indirect influence in the outcome of the decision of the court from the non-UPC country where the European patent was validated.

In some cases, parties may seek alternative forums or challenge the UPC’s ability to issue decisions with cross-border effects, which might result in forum selection and have implications for the coherence of the European patent system. As case law continues to evolve, further clarity is expected regarding the practical impact of the UPC’s jurisdiction and the impact on countries not yet participating in the UPC system. In our next article, we will consider in particular how the UK and the EU are responding to this dynamic tension.

1 The EPO was established under the European Patent Convention (EPC) in 1978 and currently has 39 member states, including both EU and non-EU countries.

2 When a country has signed but not yet ratified the UPC Agreement, it means the system has not been implemented there and the UPC does not have jurisdiction. Each country must first complete its own national procedures to bring the agreement into force.

3 Court of Justice of the European Union decision, of 12 July 2012, Solvay SA v. Honeywell Europe NV et al (Case C-616/10).

4 Unified Patent Court, Court of First Instance, Düsseldorf Local Division decision, of 28 January 2025, Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH et al. (Case No. UPC_CFI_355/202).

5 Court of Justice of the European Union decision, of 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (Case C-339/22).

6 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).

7 Court of Justice of the European Union decision, of 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (Case C-339/22).

8 Unified Patent Court of First Instance, Paris Local Division decision, of 21 March 2025, Mul-T-Lock France et al. v. IMC Créations (Case No. UPC_CFI_702/2024.

9 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007 (2009/C 319/01).

10 Unified Patent Court of First Instance, Helsinki Local Division decision, of 11 February 2025, AIM Sport Development AG v. Supponor SASU et al. (Case No.UPC_CFI_214/2023).

11 Unified Patent Court, Hamburg Local Division decision, of 14 August 2025, Dyson Technology Limited v. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited et al. (Case No. UPC_CFI_387/2025).

12 Unified Patent Court, Milan Local Division decision, of 14 April 2025, Dainese spa v.Alpinestars Research S.P.A . (Case No. UPC_CFI_792/2024).