UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, 2 October 2025: BSH Hausgerate also applies in cases in which jurisdiction follows from article 7(2) of the Brussels RegulationBR.
08-12-2025 Print this page
Preliminary objection admissible (R. 19.7 RoP) due to the primacy of Union law, the objections against international jurisdiction are not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP.
The court has jurisdiction to hear the case against the Korean defendant regarding Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom in accordance with Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg.)
Defendant infringes upon the patent-in-suit in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (Article 25 UPCA) by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom via its subsidiary NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and its distributor Warmcook, which both were shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom and have their place of business in and acting from the UPC territory.
Warmcook’s French web page from the French web shop states in general terms that Warmcook ships products to all EU member states and the United Kingdom (alongside Switzerland and French overseas territories). The fact that Warmcook’s website uses the French language and Euro as currency does not alter the fact that the website itself states shipments to said countries outside France.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH is undisputedly the European sales branch of defendant, and the importer according to the CE mark and the equivalent UK mark on the nameplate of the test purchase (exhibit P14), designating NUC Electronics Europe GmbH as the relevant importer for the EU and the UK respectively.
Jurisdiction over non-EU defendant for infringement in the EU member states Poland and Spain as well as in the Non-EU member state United Kingdom follows from Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg.
Since the UPC as a common court has no national law within the meaning of Art. 6 Brussels Ia Reg., Art. 71b (2) Brussels Ia Reg. stipulates that, where a defendant is not domiciled in a member state of the European Union, and the regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II of the Brussels Ia Reg. (i.e. Art. 4 to 35) shall apply as appropriate regardless of defendant’s domicile.
The necessary international element of the legal relationship in question can result from its link to another EU member state or to a third state.
The ECJ’s ruling in BSGH Hausgeräte also applies in cases in which jurisdiction follows from article 7(2) BR.
Substantive scope of Article 7(2) BR. The place of the event giving rise to the damage, as far as a registered intellectual property right is concerned, is not restricted to the country in which the right is registered. The proximity to the place where the action controlling the events takes place typically facilitates the gathering of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. The option to choose the place where the acts are committed that give rise to the damage to bring an action is not excluded.
The UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 (Article 32(1) UPCA).
The competence of the Local Division Mannheim follows from Art. 33 (1) (a), sentence 3 UPCA. Claimant states an infringement inter alia in Germany.
