Article 7

A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State:
(1) (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question;
(b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:
— in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered,
— in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;
(c) if point (b) does not apply then point (a) applies;
(2) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;
(3) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seised of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings;
(4) as regards a civil claim for the recovery, based on ownership, of a cultural object as defined in point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 93/7/EEC initiated by the person claiming the right to recover such an object, in the courts for the place where the cultural object is situated at the time when the court is seised;
(5) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated;
(6) as regards a dispute brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the Member State in which the trust is domiciled;
(7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question:
(a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or
(b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given;
provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage.

Court of Justice EU

IPPT20131003, CJEU, Pinckney v Mediatech
Court of the location where the damage as a result of copyright infringement has taken place only has jurisdiction to determine the damage caused in the state in which it is situated.

IPPT20120419, CJEU, Wintersteiger v Products 4U

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a Member State because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country specific top-level domain of another Member State may be brought before either the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered or the courts of the Member State of the place of establishment of the advertis

UPC Case Law

UPC Court of Appeal

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
[…] by manufacturing, preparing and selling its GlucoMen iCan products intended for the European market, the likelihood of damage arose from the possibility of third parties obtaining these products in the Contracting Member States, including in the Netherlands.  This provides basis for accepting jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 71(b)(2) and Art. 7(2) BR. 
 

IPPT20260313, UPC CoA, Adobe v Keeex
Preliminary objection granted: Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR limited to UPC territory. France as place of harmful event / where infringement is likely to occur (Article 7 BR, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). The Court of Appeal already clarified that the "place where the infringement occurred or is likely to occur" referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA should be interpreted in the same way as the place "where the harmful event occurred or is likely to occur" referred to in Article 7(2) BR. Where the damage is allegedly caused via a website, these provisions do not require that the website be intended for users located in the territory of the Member States concerned, but simply that it be accessible within the jurisdiction of the court or division seised . Jurisdiction of the UPC (as a common court) with regard to defendants domiciled outside of the EU is governed by the Brussels Regulation pursuant to Article 71b(2) BR. Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR limited to UPC territory. On the basis of Article 7(2) BR the UPC only has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning damage occurring in its territory, which is the only link between the court seised and the subject matter of the dispute. 

IPPT20240903, UPC CoA, Aylo v Dish
UPC jurisdiction because of place of harmful event (Article 7(2) and 71(b(1) Brussels I recast). UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur in that particular Contracting Member State. Sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the UPC that the patent at issue has effect in, inter alia, Germany, and (that) AYLO’s websites are accessible in, inter alia, Germany. The identification of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur […], does not depend on criteria which do not appear in this provision and which are specific to the examination of the merits, such as the conditions for establishing an indirect infringement within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA. Places of article 33(1(a) UIPCA and article 7(2) Brussels I Recast are the same. The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements. No unwritten preliminary objections. The list of preliminary objections of R. 19.1 RoP must be regarded as exhaustive. The application of  R. 19 to 21 RoP therefore cannot be extended to other defences, such as abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation.

UPC Court of First Instance

IPPT20260420, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Nokia v Geely
Ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction granted prohibiting the defendants from pursuing a Chinese “interim licence” (Article 32 UPCA, Article 56 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Article 7 Brussels I). The Court has jurisdiction and competence. The place where the threatened infringement of the applicants’ patent rights is to occur lies within the jurisdiction of the UPC. The applicants would be prevented from enforcing their patents, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. Right to block interim licence. The patent includes a right to judicial enforcement. 

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
Statement of Claim alleges that website is accessible within French territory (Article 7(2) BR) it is not necessary to demonstrate that the website in question is specifically aimed at the French public; the sole criterion that the website is accessible within French territory is sufficient to establish an infringement of a digital product or digital service offered online. Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR also extents to third country territories (namely Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland), based on the BSH decision: applies regardless of whether the basis for jurisdiction is established under Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (domicile of one of the defendants) or on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place where the harmful event occurred), contrary to what is claimed by the defendants.

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement of Unitary patent by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in dispute is that Sinocare makes the iCan CGM App available on its website, specifically also for countries within UPCA territory, and that it is the manufacturer of the GlucoMen iCan and named as such in the Eudamed entry for the GlucoMen iCan and in the user guide. Furthermore, Menarini and Sinocare announced that they would cooperate in bringing the Glucomen iCan to the European market. At least there is then combined/joint threatened infringement in UPCA territory. Furthermore, this concerns alleged (threatened) infringement of the same patent in the same territory with the same product. Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Sinocare can therefore be based on Art. 7(2) BR.  

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycell
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025. Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) .The Court has international jurisdiction to hear the infringement Action (Art. 7.2 Brussels Regulation) because the alleged infringement by the Polish Defendant also takes place in the Netherlands. 
 

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC Electronics
The court has jurisdiction to hear the case against the Korean defendant regarding Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom in accordance with Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg.) Defendant infringes upon the patent-in-suit in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (Article 25 UPCA)  by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom via its subsidiary NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and its distributor Warmcook.  Jurisdiction over non-EU defendant for infringement in the EU member states Poland and Spain as well as in the Non-EU member state United Kingdom follows from Art. 71b (2), Art. 7 (2) Brussels Ia Reg. Since the UPC as a common court has no national law within the meaning of Art. 6 Brussels Ia Reg., Art. 71b (2) Brussels Ia Reg. stipulates that, where a defendant is not domiciled in a member state of the European Union, and the regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II of the Brussels Ia Reg. (i.e. Art. 4 to 35) shall apply as appropriate regardless of defendant’s domicile. The necessary international element of the legal relationship in question can result from its link to another EU member state or to a third state.  The ECJ’s ruling in BSGH Hausgeräte also applies in cases in which jurisdiction follows from article 7(2) BR.  Substantive scope of Article 7(2) BR. The place of the event giving rise to the damage, as far as a registered intellectual property right is concerned, is not restricted to the country in which the right is registered. 

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. 

IPPT20250829, UPC LD The Hague, Cilag v RiVOLUTION
LD The Hague competent to hear infringement claim (Article 33.1 UPCA). The panel doubts whether the UPCA should be interpreted such that, in case of a unitary patent, all divisions of the court are then also competent to hear the case, irrespective of the internal distribution of competences of the court provided by Art. 33.1 UPCA. This would make Art. 33.1 UPCA effectively meaningless for cases relating to unitary patents. Cilag substantiated in a sufficiently plausible way that the asserted imminent/threatened infringement is also directed to customers in the Netherlands. The LD The Hague therefore is competent to hear the application pursuant to Art. 7(2) BR and Art. 33.1(a) UPCA. 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
The UPC has international jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state, regardless of the Defendant's place of residence (Article 7(2) BR).The jurisdiction granted by Art. 7 (2) BR [Defendant 1] is not limited to the Member State as according to Art. 34 UPCA Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent is in effect. 

IPPT20250523, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Jurisdiction regarding Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway and Spain because of allegation that Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway and Spain each not only infringe individually (asserting that jurisdiction can be based on Art. 7(2) BR), but that they also infringe the patent jointly with Moderna Netherlands in their home country. Therewith they infringe the same (national parts of a European) patent with the same product, which is enough connectivity to consider them co-defendants within the meaning of Art. 8(1) BR. 

IPPT20250317, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP, Article 7(3) Brussels Regulation). Sufficient for establishing international jurisdiction of the UPC that the Claimant claims that Defendant 5) would be a joint perpetrator as it was aware of the fact and deliberately intended that its processors were making their way into the German market as components of certain Xiaomi smartphones, regardless whether or not these assertions are disputed by Defendant 5) or not.

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
No UPC jurisdiction regarding Turkey: no single fact brought forward or apparent that may constitute an act committed within the territory of the UPCA member states and relating to a possible infringement in Turkey (Article 7(3) Brussels Regulation).

IPPT20241218, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). An alleged patent infringement is a matter of tort, delict or quasi-delict in the meaning of Art. 7 sub (2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation. Thus, the UPC has jurisdiction also for claims based on personal (director) liability with regards to an alleged infringement of a European patent under Article 32 UPCA. Whether the director of a company can be successfully sued before the UPC and held liable for the infringement of a patent is a liable is a question of the merits of the case which is not subject to the determination of jurisdiction and competence.