Important decision by the UPC Paris Local Division concerning the international jurisdiction of this new court
On 21 March 2025, the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued an important order concerning its international jurisdiction on the infringement of European patent EP 4153830.
In this case, IMC Créations sued Mul-T-Lock France and its Swiss branch before the Local Division of Paris for infringement in several territories. Mul-T-Lock raised a preliminary objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the UPC to hear the infringement action based on national parts of the European patent having effect in countries that are not signatories to the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA), namely Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom.
After recalling the international jurisdiction of the UPC in accordance with Article 31 of the Agreement on the UPC (UPCA) as well as the provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Lugano Convention, and referring to the recent decision of the CJEU of 25 February 2025 (C-339/22, BSH vs Electrolux), the Paris Local Division affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the infringement action on the basis of the Swiss, Spanish and British parts of the patent invoked.
The Paris Local Division explained that it had territorial jurisdiction because one of the defendants was domiciled in France and that “the patent holder must be able to concentrate all his infringement claims, in the event of infringement disputes in several EU Member States, and obtain global compensation before a single court and avoid the risk of conflicting decisions”, as the jurisdiction of the court should not be “subordinated to the procedural strategy of the defendant”.
The Paris Local Division also noted that this solution did not infringe the rights of the defence or the principle of equality of arms between the parties, since the court hearing an infringement action will always have the option (i) to suspend the proceedings in order to take into account, where appropriate, the decision handed down by the court of the Member State of the European Union or of a State bound by the Lugano Convention or (ii) to hand down a decision with inter partes effect exclusively when the validity of the patent is contested.
The UPC therefore rejected the preliminary objection raised by Mul-T-Lock, affirming its extended territorial jurisdiction and marking a significant step in the application of the long-arm jurisdiction principle.
More information at www.upc-casalonga.eu.