Article 8

A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued:
 (1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;
(2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case;
(3) on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending;
(4) in matters relating to a contract, if the action may be combined with an action against the same defendant in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property, in the court of the Member State in which the property is situated.

 CJEU Case law:

IPPT20260416 , CJEU, GCC Interconnection Authority v Prysmian Netherlands

Interpretation of “anchor defendant” under Article 8 Brussels regulation in civil and commercial matters (Article 8 Brussels Regulation). For decisions to be regarded as irreconcilable, it is not sufficient that they lead to divergent outcomes, that divergence must also arise within the context of the same factual and legal situation. The rule laid down in Article 8(1) Brussels regulation cannot be interpreted as allowing an applicant to make a claim against a number of defendants for the sole purpose of removing one of them from the jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which that defendant is domiciled and, thus, of circumventing the rule of jurisdiction contained in that provision by artificially creating or maintaining the conditions for the application of that provision. It is for the referring court to assess whether the same legal and factual situation exists,[…] and to ensure that the claims brought against the sole co-defendant whose domicile justifies the jurisdiction of the court seised are not intended to artificially satisfy the conditions. Decisive situation of a parent company is established when , a parent company directly or indirectly holds all or almost all of the capital in a subsidiary that has committed an infringement of the competition rules. It is not the holding of all or virtually all of the subsidiary’s share capital that gives rise to the presumption of the effective exercise of a decisive influence, but rather the degree of control that the parent company exercises over its subsidiary as a result of that holding. “So closely connected” under Article 8(1) Brussels regulation must be interpreted as meaning that,1) in Civil and commercial matters, on one hand an action brought against an anchor defendant who has not been identified as liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement [….] and, on the other hand, actions brought against companies in respect of which there are serious indications that they belong to undertakings, within the meaning of EU competition law, to which that infringement has been attributed, may be ‘so closely connected’. 2) in order to assess whether the claims brought against several defendants are ‘so closely connected’, the predictability for the co-defendant of being sued in the court of the anchor defendant does not constitute an independent criterion, but must be taken into consideration, as a general principle, in the application of the special rule on jurisdiction. 3) in order to assess whether the claims brought against several defendants are ‘so closely connected’, the prospects of success of the claim against the anchor defendant should not be taken into account. However, it may be taken into account as an indication that the claimant has not artificially created the conditions for the application of that provision. The fact that the damage alleged in a claim for damages for cartel infringement before a court of a Member State occurred outside the EEA does not, in itself, imply, in the context of verifying the international jurisdiction of that court, that the claim must be classified as manifestly unfounded. 4)determining both the international jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a Member State in whose jurisdiction the anchor defendant is domiciled. 5) Article 8(1) does not preclude a court that was initially seised from declining jurisdiction in favour of another court in the same Member state, if it considers that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear the action against the anchor defendant, provided that the transfer is allowed under national procedural rules and does not undermine the effectiveness of the Regulation.

UPC Case Law (see also Article 33 UPCA)

Court of Appeal

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 
 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Jurisdiction of the UPC in infringement action regarding all defendants, including Spanish defendant (Article 8 Brussels I) for the allegedly infringing conduct committed in Spain by all the defendants: with regard to Defendants nos. 1 and 2, (based on the general rule of the forum of domicile) with regard to Defendant no. 6, based on article 8 Brussels I: risk of irreconcilable judgements, same situation of fact and law, predictability and non abusive summoning. Stay of infringement action in respect of Spanish action (R. 295(m) RoP) until the irrevocable decision on validity of the national Spanish portion of EP’364. 

IPPT20260407, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v DREAME

Patent valid and infringed. Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 (1) RoP).Jurisdiction and Competence (Article 4, Article 8 (1), Article 71 Brussels Regulation).UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels for every defendant, who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. The UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to the Spanish defendant, as a “close connection” according to Article 8 (1) Brussels is established. No international jurisdiction over the UK defendant regarding the UK part of patent (Article 8 Brussels Regulation).Legal requirements that are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, or at least Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, but to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU, are not a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants under Art. 8 BR.UK National part of patent. The fact, that a party is the Authorized Representative for a non-EU based manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is – as far as the evidence shows – not a sufficient basis for qualifying this party being a joint tortfeasor with the actual importer or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law. (Article 62 , 63 (1) UPCA). 

IPPT20260206, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v MicroTech

Preliminary injunction granted - likelihood of infringement (Article 25 UPCA , Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 (1) RoP) UPC has competence and internation jurisdiction over the Spanish part of the EP in Spain. (Article 4, Article 8 (1), Article 71 Brussels Regulation). All divisions of the UPC are courts of domicile according to art. 4 BR when the defendant is domiciled anywhere within the UPCA territory. The Court is equally competent and has international jurisdiction regarding the non-UCPA domiciled Defendants 1 and 2. (Article 71 b (2) , Article 8 (1) Brussels regulation) . 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
The international jurisdiction with respect to Defendant 4) follows Art. 8(1) BR. No 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. 

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.