UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, 12 February 2025: on jurisdiction, competence and appeal
07-03-2026 Print this page
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP).
The Court establishes (international) jurisdiction and competence based on the facts brought forward (Article 71b(2) Brussels, Article 28 Brussels). According to Art. 28 Brussels I recast regulation, the court has to decide on its jurisdiction under Regulation ex officio.
Competence regarding managing directors (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). In the Statement of Claim, Honeywell has asserted that all Defendants commit infringing acts themselves. Such an allegation can be done either by stating infringing acts of defendants jointly and individually. It has furthermore stated that given the specific circumstances, Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities. Whether these Defendants in fact carried out acts stated in Art. 25 UPCA and/or whether (lack of) other actions lead to the conclusion that they are an infringer within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits.
R. 20(1) RoP does not require that a defendant has to be given another opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the Defendants were able to present their arguments in their application for review.
Internal competence of divisions is not governed by Brussels I but a UPC internal matter (Article 33 UPCA).
No hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seized in relation to each defendant to establish competence. To determine competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, the existence of infringing activities, for example an offer or the possibility to obtain the allegedly infringing devices through a website accessible in the Contracting Member State hosting the local division, needs to be established.
Appeal of rejection of preliminary objection (R. 333 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur and the order may be appealed against without prior panel review under R.333.1 RoP being required.
