Article 31

International jurisdiction

The international jurisdiction of the Court shall be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 or, where applicable, on the basis of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Convention).

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
Jurisdiction (Article 31 UPCA). By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Appellant (Defendant in first instance) has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence as a ground for overturning the impugned order (Article 26(1) Brussels I Recast and R. 19.7 RoP). […] 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. 
 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Boehringer v Zentiva
Preliminary Objection rejected, the UPC has exclusive Jurisdiction. (Article 31 , Article 32 UPCA, Rule 19.1(a) RoP) . No opt-out from the exclusive competence related to the Patent is in effect. (Rule 19.1(a) RoP). The action lodged by the Claimant does not concern an administrative matter. (Article 1(1) Brussels Regulation).  

IPPT20250818, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Panel review confirming of PO order 23 May 2025 (R. 333 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Jurisdiction over Moderna Spain based on both Art. 7(2) and Art. 8(1) BR in the PO Order and for Norway on the corresponding articles of the revised Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial. For establishing international jurisdiction, it is sufficient for the Claimants to allege in a substantiated way either that Moderna Spain and Moderna Norway infringe the same patents (one of which is a bundle patent, the other has unitary effect) with the allegedly infringing product “Spikevax” (the same product) in their home countries  (the same territory) collectively  with Moderna Netherlands within the meaning of art. 8 BR / 6(1) Lugano Convention), or alternatively that these entities (threaten to) infringe the same patent with unitary effect or (national leg of) a European patent with the same product in UPC territory (Art. 7(2)BR/5(3) Lugano Convention). It is then for the court to determine whether the alleged infringement is plausible to establish jurisdiction.

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Genentech v Organon
Jurisdiction and territorial competence UPC (Article 31 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). No jurisdiction and territorial competence for order to preserve evidence and inspect premises regarding Organon US and Henlius, which have their registered office and premises outside the competent territory of the UPC. Jurisdiction and territorial competence for order to preserve evidence and inspect premises regarding Organon BE, which has its registered office in Belgium and the actual and threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Belgium with respect to EP 335. The order to preserve evidence and inspect premises  allows the execution at the premises of ORGANON NL and ORGANON BE regardless of whether third parties own any material (including servers) to be found at their premises. 

IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
A distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the jurisdiction of the UPC (Articles 31, 32 and 33 UPCA), and, on the other hand, the territorial scope of the UPC’s decisions, as defined in Article 34 UPCA related to "Territorial scope of decisions". In other words, Article 34 UPCA “relates to the scope of the effect of the decisions” The territorial scope of a UPC decision does not concern matters of jurisdiction or competence falling within the scope of application of R. 19 RoP. It follows that the Defendants' objection based on Article 34 UPCA is admissible. 

IPPT20250523, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
The PO’s filed on 24 April 2025 (…) on behalf of Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany and Poland, are not admissible for these defendants (for Moderna Poland this only applies to action 192/25), as they are late filed and these defendants are therefore considered to submit to the jurisdiction and competence of the court and of the LD The Hague (R. 19.7 RoP). Unsubstantiated objections by certain defendants to international jurisdiction of the UPC dismissed and these defendants are considered to submit to the jurisdiction of the UPC (R. 19.7 RoP) (Article 31 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). 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. Competence of Local Division 

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Paris, IMC V Mul-T-Lock
Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction regarding Spanish, Swiss and UK designations of European patent rejected (Article 4  and article 24  Brussels Ibis regulation. Article 31 UPCA, R 20 RoP). The UPC therefore has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought by IMC Créations in respect of the Spanish and Swiss parts, if necessary, by staying the proceedings pending the decision of the national court hearing the action for invalidity, if there was a significant risk that the patent would be invalidated by the court of the State in which the patent was granted. The UPC also has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action brought regarding the British part of the patent and, where appropriate, to rule on the validity of the title, provided that the decision on the plea of invalidity of the patent has only inter partes effect.

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Patent revoked in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect (Article 65 UPCA). Cross border jurisdiction UPC over defendant domiciled in UPC Contracting Member State regarding infringement of UK part of a European patent (R. 20 RoP, Article 4 Brussels Regulation, Article 24 Brussels Regulation). This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Preliminary views and questions for oral hearing (R. 105.5 RoP). Cross border injunction for UK? Panel is inclined to deal with the questions concerned in a separate proceeding after the separation of cases and stay such separate proceeding until a decision has been delivered by the ECJ (Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux). 

IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce - I
UPC has international competence regarding counterclaims for revocation of non-opted out (European) patents (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 83(3) UPCA, Article 24(4) Brussels I Recast).

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). 

IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP283

International jurisdiction UPC (Article 31 UPCA). After Sibio c.s.’ defence, Abbott indicated that it did not mean to include Ireland, so there is no need to decide on competence with regard thereto. 

IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP879
International jurisdiction UPC (Article 31 UPCA): competence for Ireland undisputed (Article 26 BR); Court does not understand the application to also involve the UK.