Article 4

1. Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.
2. Persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that Member State.

Case Law

Court of Justice EU

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

IPPT20050301, ECJ, Owusu v Jackson
No forum non-convenience exception for the benefit of courts of non-contracting states. The Brussels Convention precludes a court of a Contracting State from declining the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 2 of that convention on the ground that a court of a non-Contracting State would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action even if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other Contracting State.

UPC Case Law

IPPT20260602, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm 
No forum non-convenience (Article 4 Br I bis) Where a court has jurisdiction under Article 4 Br I bis because the defendant is domiciled in its territory, […], the Regulation precludes that court from declining jurisdiction on the ground that a court of a non-Member State would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action, even if the jurisdiction of no other Member State is in issue, or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other Member State. Accepting jurisdiction in infringement action vis-à-vis a defendant domiciled in the UPC’s territory based on Art. 4 Br I bis as such cannot be considered contrary to the TRIPS Agreement. Accepting jurisdiction […] must be distinguished from how this jurisdiction is subsequently exercised by the Court in view of all the circumstances of the case. Exercising International Jurisdiction. A court having jurisdiction to hear an alleged infringement of a patent validated outside its territory, is required to apply the law applicable to that patent and must also apply international law principles such as comity. 

IPPT20260306, UPC CoA, Dyson v Dreame
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. 
 

IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock 
Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted.(Article 63 UPCA) . Cross border injunction for infringement of Swiss part of European patent, denied. (Article 4 Brussels  Regulation) Infringement of the national part of the European patent granted by a state outside the UPC is assesed in light of the european patent as originally granted. The Local Division is unable to assess the substance of the alleged infringement of the Swiss portion of the patent and cannot stay proceedings, in the absence of pending invalidity proceedings in Switzerland. 

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Robert Bosch v Grizzly Tools

Oppositions challenging jurisdiction of the UPC dismissed , No appeal permitted. (Article 4(1) , Article 63(1) , Art. 71b (1) Brussels Regulation). For establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) of the Brussels  Regulation, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant is domiciled within the meaning of that provision, possibly in conjunction with Article 63(1) of the Brussels Regulation, in the EU Member State of the court seised. In the case of a joint court of EU Member States, Art. 71b (1) Brussels  Regulation suffices to demonstrate that the seat is in one of the states of establishment of the joint court. 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
International jurisdiction UPC including Spain (for Defendants 2 and 3). UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to Defendants 2) and 3) as they are domiciled in Germany (Article 4(1) BR). This extends to the territories of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA for which the European patent is in effect (including Spain). With respect to Defendants 1) and 3) the UPC has also jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement as far as it relates to acts infringing the Spanish national part of the patent-in-suit.  TNo plausible allegation of infringing acts by Defendants 2 and 4  in Spain.  The Applicant did not provide any reliable facts that Defendant 2) is or was involved in any marketing of the attacked embodiments in Spain. The same applies to Defendant 4). Defendant 3) is subject to the universal jurisdiction of the UPC at its seat, including alleged infringing acts with respect to the Spanish national part of the patent in suit. As Authorized Representative” pursuant to the EU regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety (GPSR) and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products, Defendants 3 is an essential party in the distribution in the EU. Without an authorized representative in the EU, Defendant 1) is not legally able to sale the attacked embodiments in the EU. Defendant 3 serves as an anchor defendant for the international jurisdiction with respect of Defendant 1) regarding the Spanish national part of the patent, if the criteria of Art. 8 (1) BR are met. 

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 

IPPT20250415, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars Research
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

IPPT20250414, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Amendment (R. 263 RoP) to include the territories of the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom following the decision of the European Court of Justice in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (Article 4 BR) could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The panel is of the opinion that Syngenta was not obliged to include the territories in question already in the original statement of claim on the basis of the opinions of AG Emiliou, as these opinions are not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the legal uncertainty resulting from this is a good reason not to base procedural decisions on opinions of the AG.

IPPT20250408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

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.

IPPT20250130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Panel inclined to deal with cross border injunction questions for the UK separately in case no final decision has been delivered by the ECJ in case 339/22 (BSH Hausgerate). The question of a possible retroactive effect of the UPCA in the light of Art 28 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) will have to be discussed, in particular if the UPCA’s substantive provisions are also applicable to acts where commitment has begun before the entry into force of the UPCA but are ongoing

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
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.