It is neither news, nor particularly a surprise, that the UPC is not restricted from granting injunctions that extend beyond its own borders. Since soon after the BSH/Electrolux[1] decision, the UPC’s Court of First Instance (“CFI”) has begun accepting jurisdiction for granting cross-border injunctions. Although the right to grant cross-border injunctions in preliminary injunction proceedings has long been known[2], the BSH/Electrolux decision breathed new life into this practice by allowing such claims to be decided upon in merits proceedings even when there is a validity counterclaim.

In the recent Kodak v Fujifilm[3] decision, the UPC’s Court of Appeal (“CoA”) confirmed the long-held belief that art. 34 UPCA, which states that decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of the UPC contracting member states, does not restrict its judgments to the territory of those states. Provided jurisdiction can be established, the UPC can decide over a cross-border dispute regarding a European patent throughout the EPO territory. In two recent decisions, the CoA has given further guidance. In the judgments of Dyson v Dreame, which contained both a CJEU referral[4] and an injunction [5], and in Fujifilm v Kodak, the practices of the CFI regarding establishing cross-border jurisdiction have been confirmed and are being further expanded.

It is worth taking stock of these judgments and the insights they give regarding the cross-border (or long arm) jurisdiction of the UPC and the opportunities and risks that litigants face.

Grounds for jurisdiction

Earlier Fujifilm v Kodak decisions of LD Düsseldorf[6] and Mannheim[7] had demonstrated that the court was willing to accept jurisdiction to grant injunctions against parties domiciled in a UPC state which extend beyond the territory the UPC. The cases regarded actions undertaken by German parties in the UK (a third-state[8]). The defendants were sued in their “home court”, so jurisdiction was based on art. 4(1) Brussels I bis Regulation[9]. This has since been followed by the LD the Hague in HL Display AB v Black Sheep[10]. Last week, the CoA confirmed this decision.

Those seeking injunctive relief against parties not domiciled in the UPC territory were not left out in the cold. In IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock[11] the LD Paris applied the same reasoning to assume jurisdiction over a French anchor defendant, but it extended this jurisdiction to also include a Swiss party (i.e. from a Lugano-state party) as well to decide on injunctions in the UPC, in non-UPC EU-states (Spain), Lugano-states (Switzerland) and third-states (the UK) on the basis of the “related-actions” jurisdiction of art. 8(1) Brussels I Bis. The related-actions jurisdiction is made possible by art. 71b(2) Brussel I bis, which grants common courts (such as the UPC) the jurisdiction over non-EU state parties through direct application of chapter II of the Regulation. The CoA confirms this practice in Fujifilm v Kodak.

It is important to note that Long-arm jurisdiction cannot be granted on the basis of the “forum delicti” (place where the harmful event occurred) jurisdiction of art. 7(2) Brussels I bis. The CoA asserted in Adobe v Keeex[12] that such jurisdiction can only endow the UPC with jurisdiction to grant relief for infringement taking place within the territory of the UPC member states.

Qualifying for the grounds

The courts have also explored what requirements parties relying on the abovementioned grounds for jurisdiction are subject to under EU law. The CoA found in Kodak v Fujifilm that there is no need to examine the plausibility of infringing acts in the context of establishing jurisdiction under the home court provision. In that regard, the bar for establishing this type of jurisdiction is low. This confirmed the CoA’s earlier handling of art. 4 Brussels I bis in Dyson v Dreame (Injunction).

The same cannot clearly be said for other grounds for jurisdiction. The related-actions ground, for instance, requires a sufficient link between the acts of infringement in the UPC member states and the acts outside the member states. In Moderna v Genevant[13] this connection was established using the long-neglected “spider-in-the-web” doctrine, stating that the Dutch anchor defendant acted as the coordinating commercial entity for the non-UPC EU-state parties (from Spain and Poland) and Lugano-state party (from Norway). The application of the related-actions ground may be further complicated when the anchor defendant does not infringe the patent himself, but acts as an intermediary. The CoA has referred a question in this respect to the CJEU in Dyson v Dreame (referral). If the answer to this question is that being an intermediary is sufficient to be an anchor defendant for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction over defendants under article 8(1) Brussels I Bis, the implications are far-reaching. In Belkin v Philips[14] the CoA set a loose definition for being an intermediary by stating it is also a person who does not personally carry out the acts of infringement but to whom the infringing acts of a third party are attributable because he is an accessory. In last week’s Fujifilm v Kodak decision, it was made clear that this encompasses all acts of joint tort-feasorship, which greatly broadens the ability of the UPC to establish cross-border jurisdiction over parties domiciled in non-UPC states.

Obtaining cross-border jurisdiction without an anchor defendant domiciled in the UPC territory is more difficult. The abovementioned Adobe v Keeex decision is also known for the attempt to make use of art. 71b(3) Brussels I bis, which stipulates that the UPC may exercise jurisdiction in respect of damage caused by an infringement of a European Patent by a non-EU defendant outside the EU, when it also has jurisdiction over that defendant for that same infringement within the Union. In Adobe v Keeex, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction on these grounds due to the fact that the non-EU defendant did not own any assets in a UPC member state. The CoA declined to answer the question of whether art. 71b(3) Brussels I bis could be applied in this manner (in conjunction with art. 7(2) Brussels I bis) to gain cross border jurisdiction over non-UPC-state parties without a UPC-state anchor defendant or what degree of connection would be required between infringements for this to apply.

All-in-all, the UPC is showing its willingness to become a one stop shop for EPO patent infringement litigation. More developments are sure to follow.

—

[1] CJEU 25 February 2025 Case C-339/22 (BSH/Electrolux).

[2] See CJEU 12 July 2012, Case C-616/10 (Solvay v Honeywell), which held that a court having jurisdiction may grant relief despite unresolved foreign patent validity issues, provided it does not finally determine validity and the relief remains capable of being displaced by the decision of the court having ultimate competence over validity.

[3] UPC CoA 2 June 2026 UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025 (Fujifilm v Kodak).

[4] UPC CoA 6 March 2026 UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 (Dyson v Dreame – CJEU referral).

[5] UPC CoA 6 March 2026 UPC_CoA_789/2025 & UPC_CoA_813/2025 (Dyson v Dreame – Injunction).

[6] UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf 28 January 2025 UPC_CFI_355/2023 (Fujifilm v Kodak).

[7] UPC CFI LD Mannheim 18 July 2025 UPC_CFI_359/2023 and UPC_CFI_365/2023 (Fujifilm v Kodak).

[8] i.e. a non-UPC, non-EU and non-Lugano state.

[9] Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

[10] UPC CFI LD The Hague 10 October 2025 UPC_CFI_386/2024 and UPC_CFI_610/2024 (HL Display v Black Sheep).

[11] UPC CFI LD Paris 21 March 2025 UPC_CFI_702/2024 (IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock)

[12] UPC CoA 13 March 2026 UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025 and UPC_CoA_925/2025 (Adobe v Keeex).

[13] UPC CFI 23 May 2025 UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025 (Moderna v Genevant).

[14] UPC CoA 3 October 2025 UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024 (Belkin v Philips).