UPC CFI, LD Munich, 20 June 2025: Jurisdiction against multiple defendants under Article 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA
09-09-2025 Print this page
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP).
Objections of defendants 1) and 2) were lodged one day after the expiry of the one month objection period (R. 300(c) RoP).
Deemed day of service of Rule 271.6(b) RoP does only apply to service of a Statement of claim in a Contracting State but not in the USA. The actual date of service must be taken into account, for which the CMS is not decisive, but rather the certificate of service or other proof of service.
Objections of defendants 1) to 3) rejected.
Competence over multiple defendants having a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement, even though the contributions of each defendant is not identical (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA).
Objections of defendant 5) rejected (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA). The existence of a business relationship as such with companies belonging to the Motorola Group is not disputed, nor the existence of a commercial activity with the same purpose, namely the promotion of manufacturing through production management agreements.
An indirect business relationship with other companies in the Motorola Group to which the third defendant also belongs and with which it maintains business relationships, is sufficient.
Also competence on the basis of Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, although not stated in the Statement of claim. Plaintiff's reference thereto in its response to the opposition must be taken into account. (R. 13 RoP, R. 263 RoP).
Even if the plaintiff had not invoked Article 33(1)(a) UPCA in the dispute, the court would have been free to base the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber on this provision.
Fifth defendant is also allegedly an intermediary by enabling and promoting the infringing acts of the other defendants as a logistics service provider (Article 63(1) UPCA).
