The UPC’s jurisdictional powers may sound like an abstract legal construct, yet recent case law shows that they have very real implications for businesses operating both within and beyond the UPC Member States.

Understanding how far the UPC’s jurisdiction extends —and what that means for enforcement and defence strategies—can make the difference between staying ahead and being caught off guard.

From national to pan-European injunctions

The idea of cross-border enforcement is not new. In the 1990s, courts in the Netherlands and other EU countries began granting pan‑European injunctions where parallel infringements of national patent designations were carried out by centrally coordinated group companies. This approach was supported by the Brussels Regulation and the so‑called “spider-in-the-web” doctrine, which allowed jurisdiction over related defendants within the same corporate group.

However, in 2006, the CJEU clipped these wings, confirming that only the courts of the Member State where a patent is registered have exclusive jurisdiction over its validity. This created a fragmented landscape in which infringement and validity proceedings were frequently split between different courts.

Enter the UPC

The 2014 amendment to the Brussels I Recast Regulation changed the framework by explicitly recognising the UPC as a court common to several Member States for jurisdictional purposes. Article 71b(3) integrates the UPC into the EU jurisdictional system and may, under certain conditions, allow proceedings against non-EU defendants where a sufficient nexus to the EU exists, such as assets or relevant commercial activities. While some UPC decisions suggest that interim relief may, in exceptional cases, have effects beyond UPC territory, the precise limits of such measures—particularly outside the EU—remain legally unsettled.

Recent case law: A turning point

The 2025 CJEU decision in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux marked a significant shift.
While courts remain barred from revoking patents registered in other EU Member States, they may assess infringement even where validity is raised as a defence. For patents in non‑EU EPC states (such as the UK or Turkey), the UPC may assess validity inter partes as part of an infringement analysis, although it cannot modify the national register or issue an erga‑omnes revocation.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the UPC’s jurisdictional “long arm” may extend further than previously assumed, particularly in complex infringement scenarios involving multiple jurisdictions.

Practical impact

A number of recent UPC decisions – many still at an early procedural stage—illustrate how this expanded jurisdictional reach may operate in practice:

• ICM Creations v Mul-T-Lock – UPC asserted jurisdiction over UK patents and Swiss designations (LD-Paris-March-21-2025-procedural-order-on-preliminary-objection-UPC_CFI_7022024.pdf).
• Dainese v Alpinestars – UPC ruled on infringement of a Spanish patent (4FE650239BBEBDF9F3FB2AF36B491BDA_en.pdf).
• Fujifilm v Kodak – Injunctions covered both UK and German designations (22171649F38D5EA5867DA76378B5A2AA_en.pdf).
• Dyson v Dreame – UPC asserted jurisdiction over Spanish patent and linked EU based “anchor defendant” with Hong Kong based defendant (20368_2025 Decision final 14082025_signed all.pdf).

The strategic use of anchor defendants – typically EU based affiliates or representatives—has also enabled the UPC to pull non-EU parties into its orbit, though questions remain about the limits of this approach.

The UPC Court of Appeal in the Dyson v Dreame case has referred several questions concerning the “anchor defendant” principle to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The outcome of this referral is likely to have a significant impact on the scope of the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction, particularly in relation to defendants located in third countries.

What does this mean for you?

• Review your corporate footprint: Even a limited but commercially relevant presence in a UPC Member State can create jurisdictional exposure.
• Plan for multi-jurisdictional strategies: Effective enforcement and defence increasingly require a pan-European mindset.
• Act fast: UPC proceedings move quickly, and applications for preliminary injunctions may be decided within weeks.

Conclusion

The UPC’s jurisdictional reach is evolving rapidly, shaped by legislative reform and emerging case law. While its powers to revoke patents remain constrained, its potential to enforce rights across borders appears to be expanding.

The long arm of the UPC is taking shape – and businesses would be well advised to prepare accordingly.

 

Ernst-Ulrich Wittmann
UPC Group

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Withers & Rogers LLP March 2026