ARTICLE
22 April 2026

LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport and Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.

Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the UK defendant’s acts were limited to the UK territory.

The UPC may join the question of jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant to the merits if claims are closely connected to those against an EU-domiciled co-defendant.

Under Art. 8(1) and 71b(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it “appropriate and expedient” to hear claims together to avoid irreconcilable judgments, as they involved the same products, patent, and companies within the same group.

The decision to defer was characterized as neither allowing nor rejecting the objection, making it appealable under R. 220.2 RoP, following the Valeo v. Bosch precedent (UPC_CoA_4/2026).

A request for an oral hearing on a preliminary objection may be denied if the judge-rapporteur considers the parties’ written submissions to be sufficient for a decision.

Under R. 20.1 and R. 264 RoP, the court has discretion to decide whether to hold a hearing or rely on written submissions to ensure parties are heard.

A request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on jurisdiction may be denied as premature if the jurisdictional question is deferred to the merits.

The request under Art. 267 TFEU was also deemed unnecessary where the court had already found it lacked jurisdiction over another defendant, rendering a referral on that point moot. 

2. Division

LD Paris

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_2070/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Infringment Proceedings

5. Parties

Claimant: BMS Innovations, LLC

Defendants: BYD Company Ltd
BYD Auto Co., Ltd
BYD Europe B.V.
BYD France SAS
BYD Automotive GmbH
BYD Mobility GmbH
BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 937 706

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 31 UPCA,

Art. 267 TFEU,

R. 19 RoP, R. 20.1 RoP, R. 21.1 RoP, R. 220.1 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 264 RoP

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis): Art. 4, Art. 7(2), Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2).

To view the full article please click here.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More