Article 24

The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties:
(1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated.
However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State;
(2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law;
(3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the Member State in which the register is kept;
(4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place.
Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that Member State;
(5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.

CJEU Case law

IPPT20250225, CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux
Cross border jurisdiction of a Swedish court over a Swedish domiciled defendant regarding infringement of all national parts of a European patent validated in Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Türkiye. Article 4 and article 24 Brussels I bis Regulation. Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant which is seised, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, does still have jurisdiction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent, whereas the courts of that other Member State have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on that validity. Cross border jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels I bis Regulation: under the general rule laid down in Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled have, in principle, jurisdiction in an infringement action brought against that defendant by the holder of a patent granted or validated in a third State which is domiciled in another Member State. In addition, the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State thus seised does, in principle, by virtue of that general rule, extend to the question of the validity of that patent raised as a defence in the context of that infringement action. Article 24(4) Brussels 1 bis Regulation does not apply to a court of a Third State and, consequently, does not confer any jurisdiction, whether exclusive or otherwise, on such a court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated by that State. If a court of a Member State is seised, on the basis of Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted or validated in a third State in which the question of the validity of that patent is raised, as a defence, that court has jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 4(1), to rule on that defence [inter partes], its decision in that regard not being such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State or to cause the national register of that State to be amended

IPPT20220908, CJEU, IRnova v FLIR Systems
Article 24(4) Brussels 1a regulation does not apply to proceedings aimed at determining, in the context of an action based on alleged inventor or co-inventor status, whether a person is the proprietor of the right to inventions covered by patent applications deposited and by patents granted in third countries.

UPC Case Law

IPPT20260602, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm 
Where the Court has jurisdiction to decide on the alleged infringement and remedies, based on a non-UPC designation of a European patent (EP), and where the defendant has as a defence – asserted that the EP relied on is invalid (Article 24(4) Brussels I Bis, Article 22(4) Lugano Convention) then: [...] The Court of Appeal considers the following approach regarding actions based on EU/LC European patents and/or non-EU/LC European patents to be in line with BSH v Electrolux and international principles of law, including comity, for the following situations (I, II and III respectively):)  I – when a revocation action lodged with the Court with respect to (a) EU/LC EP(s) and/or non-EU/LC EP(s): the Court shall declare that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the action. II- in an infringement action which is also based on (a) EU/LC EP(s) and/or non-EU/LC EP(s), and the patent in force in the UPC territory is considered invalid, but the attacked embodiment or process would infringe if it were valid [...] III - in an infringement action which is also based on (a) EU/LC EP(s) and/or non-EU/LC EP(s), and the patent in force in the UPC territory is considered valid and infringed in the UPC territory[...].  

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I

Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article 24(4) Brussels I Regulation). UPC as court of the domicile of defendant does have jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a NON-EU member state even if the invalidity of this patent is raised as a defence. Inter partes effect only of validity findings: there is no jurisdiction for a defence which seeks to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third state, or to cause its national register to be amended (cf. ECJ, judgement of 25 February 2025, C-399/22, para. 74 et seq.). 

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Paris, IMC V Mul-T-Lock
Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction regarding Spanish, Swiss and UK designations of European patent rejected (Article 4  and article 24  Brussels Ibis regulation. Article 31 UPCA, R 20 RoP). The UPC therefore has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought by IMC Créations in respect of the Spanish and Swiss parts, if necessary, by staying the proceedings pending the decision of the national court hearing the action for invalidity, if there was a significant risk that the patent would be invalidated by the court of the State in which the patent was granted. The UPC also has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought regarding the British part of the patent and, where appropriate, to rule on the validity of the title, provided that the decision on the plea of invalidity of the patent has only inter partes effect.

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Patent revoked in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect (Article 65 UPCA). Cross border jurisdiction UPC over defendant domiciled in UPC Contracting Member State regarding infringement of UK part of a European patent (R. 20 RoP, Article 4 Brussels Regulation, Article 24 Brussels Regulation). This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Preliminary views and questions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP). Cross border injunction for UK? Panel is inclined to deal with the questions concerned in a separate proceeding after the separation of cases and stay such separate proceeding until a decision has been delivered by the ECJ (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux). 

IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce - I
UPC has international competence regarding counterclaims for revocation of non-opted out (European) patents (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 83(3) UPCA, Article 24(4) Brussels I Recast).