Article 34

Territorial scope of decisions

Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect.

Case law

UPC Court of Appeal

IPPT20260602, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm 
UPC’s jurisdiction is not confined to its own territory (Article 34 UPCA). UPCA is expressly not limited to European patents insofar as validated for the UPC territory only. As such, European patents validated in territories outside the UPC territory is ‘matter governed by the UPCA’. Exercising International Jurisdiction. A court having jurisdiction to hear an alleged infringement of a patent validated outside its territory, is required to apply the law applicable to that patent and must also apply international law principles such as comity. 

IPPT20260417, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sinocare
Scope of preliminary injunction (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP). Injunction limited to UPC territory (except Romania) for which jurisdiction has been accepted (Article 34 UPCA). 

IPPT20250813, UPC CoA, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva
 As per Art. 34 UPCA, decisions of the Court shall cover the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the patent has effect. Injunctions, as a rule, will cover all those Contracting Member States. A restriction requires the presence of certain circumstances, such as when a claimant has restricted the territorial scope of its action (Art. 76(1) UPCA). 

IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Insulet v EOFlow
Territorial scope (Article 34 UPCA): As a rule, injunctions will cover the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the patent has effect, unless certain circumstances justify an exception (CoA Sumi v Syngenta para. 103). The fact that the attacked embodiments are not offered anymore in Germany, does not justify excluding Germany from the preliminary injunction. 

IPPT20250303, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Territorial scope – accession of Romania (Article  34 UPCA, R. 222 RoP). When a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes, the application of Art. 34 UPCA should be automatic and not subject to limitations, from the day of accession. In view of the general rule in Article 34 of the UPCA, the Court exercises its discretion to allow the application with regard to Romania in the appeal proceeding.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield
Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement order in respect of all Contracting States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA). For an order to be issued in respect of all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force, it is sufficient to determine an infringing act in one Contracting Member State. This applies even if an infringing act can only be determined in a Contracting Member State in which the patent proprietor does not assert any claims in the infringement action for procedural reasons – pending national patent infringement proceedings - (‘carve out’). 

IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycell
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025. Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) Earlier preliminary measures upheld by order of a permanent injunction, with the addition that total penalty be maximised ; (Art. 63 UPCA , Article 34 UPCA).

IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Provisional injunction granted for UPC territory in view of the likelihood of infringement and validity (Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA,  R. 211(1)(b) RoP , Rule 206 RoP). 
 

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
The UPC has international jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state, regardless of the Defendant's place of residence (Article 7(2) BR).The jurisdiction granted by Art. 7 (2) BR [Defendant 1] is not limited to the Member State as according to Art. 34 UPCA Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent is in effect. 

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Injunction covering all Contracting Member States except Romania and Malta (Article 34 UPCA). Request was submitted before Romania ratified the UPCA and TEXPORT has not made an application to amend the claim to cover also Romania. Furthermore, TEXPORT has submitted an extract from the EP register regarding the legal status of the Patent, which shows that the Patent is in force in all Contracting Member States except Malta. This means that Romania and Malta needs to be excluded from any injunction. 

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Territorial scope of decision (Article 34 UPCA). Defendants’ position that the geographical scope of the prohibition should be limited to Germany, Austria and Italy, since the contested embodiments were only offered there, is incorrect on the basis of Article 34 EPC. In the case of a European patent, the decisions of the court apply to the territory of those contracting member states for which the European patent is effective. 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
German part (only) of European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). The Unified Patent Court can revoke European patents for one or more individual UPC Member States if so requested (Article 34 UPCA, Article 76 UPCA). 

IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components

Territoriality of the acts infringement (Article 34 UPCA, R. 13.1(m) RoP, R. 171.1 RoP); only in France - no evidence of sales in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
Infringement claims concerning Poland admissible but dismissed as unfounded. 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. Long-arm jurisdiction concerning Poland: HUROM's claim concerning alleged acts of infringement on Polish territory is admissible in light of the decision handed down by the CJEU in BSH v Electrolux, as has already been stated by several divisions of the UPC concerning non-contracting States of the UPC Agreement. However, on the merits, the Claimant bears the burden of proof for the alleged facts in accordance with R. 13m and R. 171.1RoP. [...]. Consequently, HUROM's claim for infringement based on the national part of the patent as granted for Poland cannot be considered as well-founded. 

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Relevant date for determining the relevant territories covered by the patentee's request (Article 34 UPCA) is the date of filing of the statement of claim and not the date of the last oral hearing.

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
Infringing acts with regard to France and Germany respectively do not suffice to extend the remedies sought to other UPCA member state (Art. 34 UPCA) 

IPPT20240802, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Territorial limitation of the amendment was inadmissible, in the absence objective reasons for it (Article 34 UPCA). The new applications, without territorial limitations, are ultimately only a clarification of the previous legal situation, is admissible and allowed under Rule 30(2) RoP. 

IPPT20230630, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, myStromer v Revolt Zycling

Unsuccessful application for rectification under Rule 353 of order so as to include Austria in the  countries covered by provisional injunction. Conflict with the territorial scope provided in article 34 UPC Agreement does not justify a rectification under Rule 353.