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

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. 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. The Statement of claim must contain sufficient facts and submissions to establish internal and international jurisdiction of the Court (R. 13 RoP, R. 19 RoP)). In particular, where the claimant requests that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the territory of States that are not members of the UPCA, the Statement of claim must contain the facts and legal arguments necessary to justify the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 71b(3) BR. 

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. Court of Appeal refers questions to the CJEU regarding - jurisdiction under Article 8 Brussels Regulation over a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and co-defendant Eurep, an alleged intermediary whose services are used to infringe, - jurisdiction under Article 71b(2), second sentence regarding provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in both a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and  UPC Contracting Member States when offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language,- Impact of Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive 
 

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.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The Court establishes (international) jurisdiction and competence based on the facts brought forward (Article 71b(2) Brussels, Article 28 Brussels). According to Art. 28 Brussels I recast regulation, the court has to decide on its jurisdiction under Regulation ex officio. 

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). International jurisdiction regarding defendant Hemtech, not domiciled in a Member State (Article 71(b)(2) Brussels). The fact that Honeywell did not (also) explicitly mention this paragraph 2 of Art. 71b Brussels I recast Regulation in the SoC, does not mean that international jurisdiction of the Court should be denied. Honeywell did state the facts and ultimate ground and principle for international jurisdiction it relies on, namely Art 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, […]. Honeywell also explicitly stated that it has suffered and suffers damage in Germany and other UPC Member States where the patent is valid because the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the patent in those States. 

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.