- within Transport topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State
The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation to assess its own jurisdiction, even if the claimant did not explicitly invoke all relevant legal grounds.
It is sufficient to substantiate in the statement of claim that the defendant allegedly infringes the patent-in-suit in a Contracting Member State where the patent is valid. Whether the defendant is factually involved in infringing activities is a question for the merits, not the preliminary stage. The defendant's right to be heard is not violated if they had ample opportunity to argue their case.
The UPC has competence pursuant to Art.32(1)(a)UPCA if the claimant sufficiently states that certain defendants can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities
Whether this leads to liability under Arts. 25 and/or 63 UPCA has to be decided in the case on the merits.
Competence of the LD Mannheim based on place of infringement is not subordinate to the defendant's domicile and requires only a cursory assessment of allegations
The allocation of competence between UPC divisions is an internal matter not governed by the Brussels I Regulation, but by Art. 33 UPCA. There is no hierarchy between the grounds in Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA.
It is not necessary to establish connecting factors for each defendant to the division's territory. Allegations of product offers on a website accessible in the territory are sufficient for a preliminary finding of competence.
A panel can grant leave to appeal a decision on a preliminary objection even when rejecting a party's application for review
If a judge-rapporteur rejects an objection without granting leave, a party may seek panel review under R.333.1 RoP. The panel can then grant leave to appeal its own decision, acknowledging the significance of the legal arguments raised.
2 Division
LD Mannheim
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_575/2025
4 Type of proceedings
infringement action
5 Parties
Claimant: Honeywell Control Systems Ltd., England
Defendants: Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., all the Netherlands; Hemtech d.o.o., Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 Patent
EP 2 563 695
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP, Rule 333 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
