Article 32

Competence of the Court

1.   The Court shall have exclusive competence in respect of:

(a) actions for actual or threatened infringements of patents and supplementary protection certificates and related defences, including counterclaims concerning licences;

(b) actions for declarations of non-infringement of patents and supplementary protection certificates;

(c) actions for provisional and protective measures and injunctions;

(d) actions for revocation of patents and for declaration of invalidity of supplementary protection certificates;

(e) counterclaims for revocation of patents and for declaration of invalidity of supplementary protection certificates;

(f) actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application;

(g) actions relating to the use of the invention prior to the granting of the patent or to the right based on prior use of the invention;

(h) actions for compensation for licences on the basis of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012; and

(i) actions concerning decisions of the European Patent Office in carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012.

2.   The national courts of the Contracting Member States shall remain competent for actions relating to patents and supplementary protection certificates which do not come within the exclusive competence of the Court.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250602, UPC CoA, XSYS v Esko
The UPC has competence regarding acts committed before entry into force of the UPCA and during the opt-out of a patent (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1) UPCA does not provide for any temporal limitation of the exclusive co.mpetence of the Court. The option to opt-out is limited to the choice of forum and does not provide, as a result of such a choice. Since Art. 32 UPCA was in effect at the time of deciding on the competence of the Court, it is not being applied retroactively to determine competence. When deciding to withdraw the opt-out, the patent proprietor chooses to bring the patent back under the (exclusive) competence of the Court. The provisions on withdrawal do not provide for a partial or limited withdrawal

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, Article 24 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.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Competence of the UPC (Article 25 UPCA, Article 32(1)(a) UPCA). No lack of standing of holding company because of excerpt of the Chamber of commerce (activity consist of “productions and commercialization of sport gear”) and prior engagement in multiple litigations against plaintiff. Whether or not defendant is actually involved in the infringement is a different matter. 

IPPT20260420, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Nokia v Geely
Ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction granted prohibiting the defendants from pursuing a Chinese “interim licence” (Article 32 UPCA, Article 56 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Article 7 Brussels I). The Court has jurisdiction and competence. The place where the threatened infringement of the applicants’ patent rights is to occur lies within the jurisdiction of the UPC. The applicants would be prevented from enforcing their patents, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. Right to block interim licence. The patent includes a right to judicial enforcement. 

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Competence regarding managing directors (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). In the Statement of Claim, Honeywell has asserted that all Defendants commit infringing acts themselves. Such an allegation can be done either by stating infringing acts of defendants jointly and individually. It has furthermore stated that given the specific circumstances, Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities. Whether these Defendants in fact carried out acts stated in Art. 25 UPCA and/or whether (lack of) other actions lead to the conclusion that they are an infringer within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits. 

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).  

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). The UPC has competence (Article 32 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) with regard to managing directors (defendants Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk) to whom infringing acts may be attributable since the action against them can be identified as an alleged action for actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Whether these Defendants in fact commit infringing acts themselves and/or whether infringing acts of other entities are attributable to them in the sense that they are an “infringer” within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits. 

IPPT20251030, UPC CFI LD Paris, Sun Patent v Vivo
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction and competence rejected. (Article. 32(1)(a) UPCA , Article 33 UPCA, Rule 19 RoP). UPC has jurisdiction to hear the main infringement claim, including a claim for an injunction.  (Article 32 (1 (a) UPCA). The main issue of infringement of an essential patent is undoubtedly linked to the incidental question of the FRAND offer, as a condition dependent on the main issue. The FRAND issue can be dealt with incidentally by the UPC according to consistent UPC CFI caselaw .

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC Electronics
The UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023 (Article 32(1) UPCA). 

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock
Detailed ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60 UPCA, R. 194.2a RoP, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP, R. 199 RoP). Even an imminent infringement in Germany is sufficient to establish the local jurisdiction of the German Local Divisions (Article 32(1)(c) UPCA, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). 

IPPT20250825, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, MED-EL v Nurotron
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). 

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
Territorial scope and preliminary objections. Defence that UPC lacks jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA to rule concerning acts of infringement committed in Poland does not concern matters of jurisdiction or competence falling within the scope of R. 19 RoP. It follows that the defendants objection based on Article 34 UPCA is admissible. 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 

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva

Jurisdiction of the UPC regarding provisional measures because of alleged imminent infringement by defendant (Article 32(1)(a),(c) UPCA, Article 62(1) UPCA). It is irrelevant that an administrative entity issued the Notice from which the imminent infringement arises. According to the Applicant, the imminent infringement of its European Patent is what prompts the need for provisional measures, as the Defendant is currently in a position to offer or place its infringing products on the market at any moment. This factual assertion is, in light of the above-mentioned legal framework, sufficient to establish the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC. 

IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci

Counterclaim for revocation may attack the patent in its entirety, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement request (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). 

IPPT20250415, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars Research
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Competence of the UPC (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 83 UPCA) extends to infringement proceedings concerning a European patent which had not yet expired at the time of the entry into force of the UPCA at 1 June 2023 and Also encompasses claims for (allged) acts of use prior to 1 June 2023 and rior to 2 February 2024 (withdrawal of the opt-out). Applicable law: (Article 24 UPCA) the substantive law as laid down in the UPCA applies to acts that began before the entry into force of the UPCA and continued after 1 June 2023. Damages or compensation derived from provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application (Article 32(1)(f) UPCA). Since such compensation is not regulated in either the UPP Regulation or the UPCA, the court must apply the provision of Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA on the basis of Art. 67 EPC, which grants Member States discretion in terms of how they structure such compensation. Since there is currently no uniform regulation on the question of compensation, it is initially for the plaintiff seeking such compensation to demonstrate that the conditions for compensation are met in the individual Member States in question.

IPPT20250408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in non-UPC countries.

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fingon v Samsung
No doubt about the UPC’s jurisdiction regarding alleged infringing acts committed before its entry into force.

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
No jurisdiction UPC over national parts of a European patent, which have already lapsed in a UPCA member stat or a non-UPCA-member state before 1 June 2023 (Article 3(c) UPCA, Article 32 UPCA).

IPPT20250321, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink
Date of the grant of the European patent should be considered as the objective earliest date to file an action with the UPC and not the date of registration of the unitary effect of this European patent (either an action for infringement (Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA) or an action for provisional measures (Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA). 

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
UPC has jurisdiction for acts committed before the UPCA’s entry into force on 1 June 2023. Applicable law. The determination of the substantive law applicable to an alleged infringement is to be strictly distinguished from the jurisdiction to hear the case. 

IPPT20250214, UPC CFI, LD Munich, GXD-Bio v Myriad
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 19 RoP) Defendants have not raised any of the grounds set out in the exhaustive list of Rule 19.1 RoP. […] the grounds put forward by the Defendants 1-8 in support of their preliminary objection do not appear to concern the Court's jurisdiction and competence under Article 32 UPCA, but only the question of the Claimant's standing to bring an action and/or the question of whether the Claimant has acquired substantive ownership of the claims it has asserted.

IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Phoenix v ILME
IPPT20250210, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Esko v XSYS
Preliminary objection admissible, but unfounded (R. 19 RoP). The UPC's has jurisdiction relating to a European patent that has not yet lapsed at the time of entry into force of the UPCA pursuant to Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2g), Art. 3c) UPCA and covers infringement actions to the extent that they are based on acts of use which are alleged to have taken place before the UPCA entered into force and/or in the period between an opt-out and the withdrawal thereof (Article 84 UPCA). Jurisdiction and applicable law are separate aspects that must be assessed separately. It cannot be concluded from the UPC's jurisdiction that the UPCA always applies to every case to be decided, nor is the applicable law decisive for the UPC's jurisdiction (Article 24 UPCA, Article 32 UPCA).

IPPT20250130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP). Panel inclined to deal with cross border injunction questions for the UK separately in case no final decision has been delivered by the ECJ in case 339/22 (BSH Hausgerate). The question of a possible retroactive effect of the UPCA in the light of Art 28 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) will have to be discussed, in particular if the UPCA’s substantive provisions are also applicable to acts where commitment has begun before the entry into force of the UPCA but are ongoing

IPPT20241218, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). An alleged patent infringement is a matter of tort, delict or quasi-delict in the meaning of Art. 7 sub (2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation. Thus, the UPC has jurisdiction also for claims based on personal (director) liability with regards to an alleged infringement of a European patent under Article 32 UPCA. Whether the director of a company can be successfully sued before the UPC and held liable for the infringement of a patent is a liable is a question of the merits of the case which is not subject to the determination of jurisdiction and competence.

IPPT20241209, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Anti-anti-suit and -anti-enforcement injunction granted (Article 62 UPCA). The UPC jurisdiction to issue interim measures to grant legal protection against imminent (foreign) prohibition regarding litigation and/or enforcement follows from Article 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA. 

IPPT20241115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril - II
The UPC has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before entry into force of the UPCA (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA). 

IPPT20241022, UPC CFI LD Hamburg, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Panel review of order to produce documents which are the subject of parallel US proceedings (R. 333 RoP, Article 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). Defence of abuse of rights can be considered by the UPC. Production of emails allegedly showing that the first claimant had acted, including the acquisition of […], with the aim of securing a dominant position in the SST market, and that the second claimant was aware that the […] licence or its transfer to the first claimant would harm the defendant. Production of documents regarding specific instructions by first claimant of its employees to destabilise the market. Price-related abuse of a dominant position is not relevant either to the question of patent infringement or to any secondary claims arising from such infringement. The issue of an alleged restriction of competition resulting from a company’s pricing policy has no connection to a patent dispute. 

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). 

IPPT20240411, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ARM v ICPillar
UPC has jurisdiction over infringement acts that began before 1 June 2023 and continued after this date and that are not covered by the period of limitations. This applies on the basis of Articles 3(c), 32(1)(a) and 72 UPCA. 

IPPT20231117, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fives v Reel

Article 32(a) UPCA confers competence on the UPC to determine damages only after a prior action for patent infringement has been brought before a chamber of the UPC. The UPC does not have competence for actions for the determination of damages on the basis of patent infringement proceedings that have become final before a national court. Preliminary objection granted (Rule 19(1)(a) RoP)

IPPT20231020, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor

UPC lacks competence because withdrawal of opt-out on 5 July 2023 is ineffective due to national infringement and invalidity proceedings brought before German national courts, which were pending on 1 June 2023 (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA, Rule 5 RoP). Irrelevant whether same parties are involved in the national actions. Article 71c(2) Brussels I Regulation (recast) only concerns a situation of parallel jurisdiction and is not applicable where the competence of the UPC has been opted out. The reading used by the Court of Article 83(4) UPCA is also in line with the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties as stipulated under Article 28 VCLT.

IPPT20230929, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril

In the view of the judge-rapporteur the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction over infringement acts committed before the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on 1 June 2023. This follows from article 3(c) UPCA and article 32(1)(a) UPCA and the absence of transitional provisions to the contrary.