UPC Local Division: Jurisdiction Non-UPCA Member States

According to the CJEU 25. 2. 2025, C-339/22, BSH Haushaltsgeräte, the UPC remains competent for infringement actions concerning patents in non-UPCA Member States even if the defendant disputes the validity of that patent by way of a defence in the infringement proceedings. Accordingly, the UPC remains competent for the Spanish part of the patent and for the British part of the patent. The same applies analogously to the Swiss part, as Switzerland is bound by the Lugano Convention, to which Article 31 UPCA refers, which establishes the same fundamental jurisdiction of the courts at the defendant's domicile and the same exceptions regarding the registration or validity of the patent in accordance with Article 22(4) and Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, when the validity of the patent is at issue. The UPC is therefore authorised to decide on the infringement action initiated by the claimant in relation to the Spanish and Swiss parties, possibly by staying the proceedings until a decision is made by the national court seized with the revocation action, if there is a reasonable, non-insignificant risk that the patent will be declared invalid by the court of the state in which the patent was granted (LK Paris 21. 3. 2025, CFI 702/2024).

In view of the CJEU decision 25. 2. 2025, C-339/22, BSH Haushaltsgeräte, the Milan Local Division has comprehensive international jurisdiction to decide on patent infringements in connection with European patents against defendants domiciled in Italy. A different interpretation would result in the UPC having a smaller territorial jurisdiction than a national court, which would be in conflict with Article 71a of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The Milan Local Division is therefore, provided it is the court at the defendant's domicile, also competent for patent infringement proceedings concerning European patents that have been validated in non-UPCA states – in the present case, Spain (LK Mailand 8. 4. 2025, CFI 792/2024).