Article 29

1. Without prejudice to Article 31(2), where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
2. In cases referred to in paragraph 1, upon request by a court seised of the dispute, any other court seised shall without delay inform the former court of the date when it was seised in accordance with Article 32.
3. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.

UPC Case Law

UPC Court of Appeal

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Mala v Nokia
A court is to decline jurisdiction only if the proceedings involve the same cause of action and the same parties (Articles 31 and 29 Brussels I recast).  Art. 31 requires that the second court seised establish the jurisdiction of the first court itself, rather than wait for the first court to establish jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 29.  No need to refer a question on the interpretation of Art. 71c(2) or the applicability of Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation to the CJEU. Whether or not the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Art. 71c(2) is correct and Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply, the result is the same.

UPC Court of First Instance

IPPT20241218, UPC LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
No lis pendens. A nullification procedure in a contracting member state over the patent at issue concerning a different party does not give rise to lis pendens (Article 29 Brussels Recast I). 

IPPT20241017, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
Patent revoked in its entirety. Court to examine its international jurisdiction of its own motion. The parties are not the same for the purposes of Articles 29  and 31 Brussels I recast Regulation. The fact that both parties belong to the same group of companies and have the same parent company is insufficient to conclude that their interests are, even though they may be to a large extent aligned, identical and indissociable. 

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Main proceedings and provisional proceedings are not the same cause of action (Article 29 Brussels Ibis).