{"id":13406,"date":"2026-06-29T11:21:22","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T09:21:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/patent-upc-court-of-appeal-confirms-broad-reach-of-upc-jurisdiction-over-uk-patent-infringement-claims\/"},"modified":"2026-06-29T11:40:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T09:40:44","slug":"patent-upc-court-of-appeal-confirms-broad-reach-of-upc-jurisdiction-over-uk-patent-infringement-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/patent-upc-court-of-appeal-confirms-broad-reach-of-upc-jurisdiction-over-uk-patent-infringement-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"PATENT | UPC Court of Appeal confirms broad reach of UPC jurisdiction over UK patent infringement claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (the\u00a0UPC CoA<\/em>)\u00a0issued its decision in joined\u00a0cases\u00a0UPC_CoA_312\/2025, UPC_CoA_333\/2025, UPC_CoA_880\/2025 and UPC_CoA_882\/2025<\/a>\u00a0(Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak GmbH et al<\/em>.) concerning EP 3 511 174,\u00a0providing important guidance on the UPC\u2019s jurisdiction over infringement claims based on non-UPC designations of European patents.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that, where it has\u00a0jurisdiction\u00a0over infringement claims concerning patents\u00a0validated\u00a0outside the UPC territory, it must apply not only the law governing the relevant patent but also principles of international comity.\u00a0The Court sets out a structured framework for managing various categories of case (which it\u00a0designates\u00a0I, I and III).<\/p>\n

First, the Court confirmed that it lacks\u00a0jurisdiction\u00a0over standalone revocation actions concerning EU\/Lugano Convention designations\u00a0of EU patents\u00a0and non-EU\/non-Lugano designations of European patents.<\/p>\n

Secondly, in\u00a0case of\u00a0infringement actions where the patent is considered invalid in the UPC\u00a0territory\u00a0but where the\u00a0attacked\u00a0product or process would infringe if valid,\u00a0the Court shall first offer the patentee the opportunity to withdraw the infringement action within an appropriate\u00a0period of time.\u00a0If the patentee does not withdraw the infringement action and insofar\u00a0a\u00a0revocation action is not already pending with the relevant competent national courts, in case of EU\/\u00a0Lugano 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\u00a0deemed\u00a0valid\u00a0and 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.<\/p>\n

Finally, where the patent is considered valid and infringed in the UPC territory,\u00a0if appropriate and in order to avoid undue delay,\u00a0the Court may\u00a0issue its decision if\u00a0there\u00a0is a \u201creasonable, non-negligible possibility<\/em>\u201d that\u00a0the\u00a0EU\/Lugano Convention\u00a0or\u00a0non-EU\/non-Lugano designations\u00a0will be\u00a0held 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\u00a0the 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.<\/p>\n

Newslettern. 119 – June 2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (the\u00a0UPC CoA)\u00a0issued its decision in joined\u00a0cases\u00a0UPC_CoA_312\/2025, UPC_CoA_333\/2025, UPC_CoA_880\/2025 and UPC_CoA_882\/2025\u00a0(Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak GmbH et al.) concerning EP 3 511 174,\u00a0providing important guidance on the UPC\u2019s jurisdiction over infringement claims based on non-UPC designations of European patents. The Court clarified that, where […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-newsletters-en-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/orsingher.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}