Article 71b

The jurisdiction of a common court shall be determined as follows:
(1) a common court shall have jurisdiction where, under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court would have jurisdiction in a matter governed by that instrument;
(2) where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, and this Regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II shall apply as appropriate regardless of the defendant’s domicile.
Application may be made to a common court for provisional, including protective, measures even if the courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter;
(3) where a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant under point 2 in a dispute relating to an infringement of a European patent giving rise to damage within the Union, that court may also exercise jurisdiction in relation to damage arising outside the Union from such an infringement.
Such jurisdiction may only be established if property belonging to the defendant is located in any Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court and the dispute has a sufficient connection with any such Member State.
 

UPC Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250116, UPC CoA, Fives v REEL
The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a national court - before entry into force of the UPCA - has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages (Article 32(1) UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA is inconclusive; […], while […] the rationale behind Art. 32(1)(f) UPCA speaks in favour of jurisdiction of the UPC for separate damages actions, when the infringement has been established by a national court. The Brussels Regulation is not relevant to the question of interpretation of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Art. 71b Brussels Ia Regulation only regulates the international jurisdiction of the UPC in relation to the courts of non-contracting Member States. Through Art. 68 UPCA, the UPC has its own damages provisions. If an action is lodged with the UPC, within its jurisdiction and encompassing a damages request, there is by consequence a complete set of substantive rules applicable insofar as the European patents of the CMSs are concerned. They are subject to uniform substantive law and procedural rules. The Rules provide for adjudication in – at the very least – one type of scenario, where the existence of an infringement will not have to be assessed in law and in fact by the Court. There does not seem to be a reason to treat the situation in the present case differently.

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.