Cross border jurisdiction of the UPC for Spain follows from the fact that Eurep is domiciled in a Contracting Member State of the UPCA, namely Germany (Article 4 Brussels, Article 71b(1) Brussels”).
Jurisdiction pursuant to these provisions is not limited to acts of the defendant within the UPC Territory. The connection with the UPC Territory is established by the domicile of the defendant, and not the location where the acts of the defendant occurred. Accordingly, contrary to the view expressed by Dreame and the Hamburg Local Division, it is not necessary to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by Eurep in Spain for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction in respect of Eurep.
Court of Appeal refers questions to the CJEU regarding
- jurisdiction under Article 8 Brussels Regulation over a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and co-defendant Eurep, an alleged intermediary whose services are used to infringe,
- jurisdiction under Article 71b(2), second sentence regarding provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in both a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and UPC Contracting Member States when offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language,
- Impact of Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive
