Article 20

Primacy of and respect for Union law

The Court shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy.

Case Law

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 

IPPT20260209, UPC CoA, PAPST Licensing v EPO
Request to grant unitary effect denied (R. 97 RoP). Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent which does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States. No justification can be found to allow for Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 to be applied contra legem. Request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (acte  clair) (Article 20 UPCA). The outcome in the present proceedings is based on a literal reading of Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012

IPPT20250820, UPC CoA, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys
Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with EU law (Article 20 UPCA). The UPC cannot ask to the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP: a referral of questions to the CJEU on interpretation of Art. 69 UPCA and R. 151 RoP as suggested by expert cannot be made. For there to be jurisdiction of the CJEU (Article 21 UPCA) the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. No reason to refer any questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the one month time limit of R. 151 RoP (Article 14 Enforcement Directive). The provision is not complex. The requirement does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objective. The provision clearly does not disproportionately affect the party’s right to effective judicial protection. In addition R. 320 RoP provides for re-establishment of rights.  

IPPT20241002, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
No reasonable doubt that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Art. 69(1) UPCA is in conformity with Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48. The Court of Appeal will therefore not refer a question to the CJEU.

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Mala v Nokia
No need to refer a question on the interpretation of Art. 71c(2) or the applicability of Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation to the CJEU. Whether or not the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Art. 71c(2) is correct and Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply, the result is the same.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251230, UPC CFI, CD Paris, PAPST v EPO
In its decision of 10 November 2025, the EPO rejected the request of registration of unitary effect of the patent in suit, based on the fact that the patent had not been granted for all member states of the UPC that were participating at the time the request was filed. (Malta) Request for annulment of the decision of the EPO rejected.  (Rule 97 RoP). The UPC applies EU law in its entirety and respects its primacy in accordance with Art. 1(2) and Art. 20 of the UPCA, including reviewing a decision by the EPO. Compliance with the guarantees afforded by the EU legal order in administrative proceedings is all the more important for the EPO as the competent authority, so that the question of whether the EPO is bound by EU law can be left open. Unitary effect is not tied to the designation of the states in the patent application, but rather to the grant of the European patent as the final result, as well as to the date of the request for unitary effect. (Article 142 EPC , Article 149 EPC) . 

IPPT20250901, UPC CD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Emporia
EU law, abuse of right and “straw companies” (Article 24 UPCA). European Union law does not specifically provide for an institution corresponding to contractual simulation or explicitly regulate “straw companies”, but it does include a general principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights. Insufficient evidence that the claimant for invalidity is a straw company. 

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
No preliminary objection required to challenge jurisdiction: suffices that the defendant raises the objection against the international jurisprudence in its first defence. Art. 26 Brussels Ia Reg. prevails over R. 19.7 RoP due to the primacy of Union Law.