Article 71a

1.  For the purposes of this Regulation, a court common to several Member States as specified in paragraph 2 (a ‘common court’) shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State when, pursuant to the instrument establishing it, such a common court exercises jurisdiction in matters falling within the scope of this Regulation.
2.  For the purposes of this Regulation, each of the following courts shall be a common court:
(a) the Unified Patent Court established by the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed on 19 February 2013 (the ‘UPC Agreement’); and
(b) the Benelux Court of Justice established by the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice (the ‘Benelux Court of Justice Treaty’).

UPC Case Law

IPPT20251006, UPC CoA, Roku v Dolby and Sun Patent
Alleged invalidity of the rules on jurisdiction of Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 71a of the Brussels regulation are a ground for a Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP). Insofar as a violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 of the ECHR due to the absence of a Central Division based in London does not concern any of the grounds for opposition listed in Rule 19.1 RoP, an opposition based on this is not admissible. “Established by law” in Article 6(1) ECHR is to prevent the organisation of the judicial system from being left to the discretion of the executive and to ensure that this area is regulated by a law enacted by the legislature in accordance with the rules governing the exercise of its powers. Administrative Committee was authorized to provide that Milan should replace London as a division of the Central Division (Article 87(2) UPCA).The fact that the Convention does not provide for any power of amendment if the implementation of the UPCA proves impossible is due to an unintended regulatory gap. Article 87(2) of the UPCA serves the purpose of ensuring that there are no obstacles to the implementation of the Convention. Roku unsuccessfully argues that the change in the court structure, which is based on a factual impossibility, is a fundamental change that requires democratically legitimised decisions by the contracting member states. The involvement of the contracting member states is sufficiently ensured by analogy on the basis of the right of veto in Article 87(3) UPCA.

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott 
Brussels Ibis applies to UPC irrespective of article 71c as the UPC is a “common court” (Article 71a Brussels Ibis, Article 31 UPCA).