Article 26

1. Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24.
2. In matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the defendant, the court shall, before assuming jurisdiction under paragraph 1, ensure that the defendant is informed of his right to contest the jurisdiction of the court and of the consequences of entering or not entering an appearance.

Case law CJEU

IPPT20170713, CJEU, BMW v Acacia
A challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the courts seised [Article 26 Brussels I recast Regulation]. When the defendant is domiciled in an EU member state actions for declaration of non-infringement under 81(b) of the Community Designs Regulation must be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is prorogation of jurisdiction. [Article 7(3) Brussels I recast Regulation] does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of the Community Designs Regulation. Article 7(3) Brussels I recast Regulation] does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for a declaration of non-infringement, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for a declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

UPC Case Law:

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
Jurisdiction (Article 31 UPCA). By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Appellant (Defendant in first instance) has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence as a ground for overturning the impugned order (Article 26(1) Brussels I Recast and R. 19.7 RoP).
 

IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
No tacit acceptance of jurisdiction, notwithstanding R. 19.7 RoP (Article 26 Brussels I regulation) by contesting jurisdiction in first defence, without having filed a preliminary objection. “Entering appearance” (Article 26 Brussels I regulation) is only when the defendant lodges its first statement, by filing a Preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19 RoP as to the issues listed in R. 19.1 and .4 RoP or, if not, the Statement of defence pursuant to R. 23 ff. RoP as to the substance of the dispute, that he will have deliberately chosen or contested the international jurisdiction of the court seized instead of the court which would normally have jurisdiction under the provisions laid down in the Brussels Regulation.
 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
The Defendants’ objection against the UPC’s jurisdiction with regard to the lapsed national parts of the patent-in-suit is not precluded by R. 19.7 RoP or Art. 26 (1) Brussels Ia Reg., although Defendants did not base their preliminary objection on the lack of jurisdiction under Art. 3 (c) UPCA, but raised an objection insofar in the oral hearing only. 

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
No preliminary objection required to challenge jurisdiction: suffices that the defendant raises the objection against the international jurisprudence in its first defence. Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. prevails over R. 19.7 RoP due to the primacy of Union Law. 

IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP879
International jurisdiction UPC (Article 31 UPCA): competence for Ireland undisputed (Article 26 BR); Court does not understand the application to also involve the UK.