UPC jurisdiction because of place of harmful event (Article 7(2) and 71(b(1) Brussels I recast).
UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur in that particular Contracting Member State.
Sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the UPC that the patent at issue has effect in, inter alia, Germany, and (that) AYLO’s websites are accessible in, inter alia, Germany.
The identification of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur […], does not depend on criteria which do not appear in this provision and which are specific to the examination of the merits, such as the conditions for establishing an indirect infringement within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA.
Places of article 33(1(a) UIPCA and article 7(2) Brussels I Recast are the same.
The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements.
No unwritten preliminary objections. The list of preliminary objections of R. 19.1 RoP must be regarded as exhaustive. The application of R. 19 to 21 RoP therefore cannot be extended to other defences, such as abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation.
