PATENT | UPC Court of Appeal confirms broad reach of UPC jurisdiction over UK patent infringement claims

On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (the UPC CoA) issued its decision in joined cases UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025 (Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak GmbH et al.) concerning EP 3 511 174, providing important guidance on the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement claims based on non-UPC designations of European patents.

The Court clarified that, where it has jurisdiction over infringement claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC territory, it must apply not only the law governing the relevant patent but also principles of international comity. The Court sets out a structured framework for managing various categories of case (which it designates I, I and III).

First, the Court confirmed that it lacks jurisdiction over standalone revocation actions concerning EU/Lugano Convention designations of EU patents and non-EU/non-Lugano designations of European patents.

Secondly, in case of infringement actions where the patent is considered invalid in the UPC territory but where the attacked product or process would infringe if valid, the Court shall first offer the patentee the opportunity to withdraw the infringement action within an appropriate period of time. If the patentee does not withdraw the infringement action and insofar a revocation action is not already pending with the relevant competent national courts, in case of EU/ Lugano Convention designations, the Court will give the defendant the opportunity to file a revocation action with the relevant competent national court within a certain period. Should a revocation action be pending or be lodged, the Court may stay the infringement proceedings until a final decision is issued by the national court(s). If no action is lodged by the defendant, the patent shall be deemed valid and the Court shall issue its decision on this basis. In case of non-EU/Lugano Convention designations, should the patentee not withdraw the infringement action, the latter shall be dismissed, unless specific reasons exist.

Finally, where the patent is considered valid and infringed in the UPC territory, if appropriate and in order to avoid undue delay, the Court may issue its decision if there is a “reasonable, non-negligible possibility” that the EU/Lugano Convention or non-EU/non-Lugano designations will be held valid by the competent national court, under the condition subsequent that the patent is not held to be wholly or partially invalid to the extent the infringement is based thereon in first instance or appeal proceedings before the national court competent to hear the revocation case in relation to such European Patent. If the latter is found to be valid, the decision of the UPC is final and the injunction becomes permanent. If not, then the condition under which the UPC decision was issued is not fulfilled and it falls away.

Newslettern. 119 – June 2026