LD Milan, April 21, 2026, Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_472/2024

Long-arm jurisdiction via Art. 8 (1) Brussel Ia Recast Regulation (BR): The “risk of irreconcilable judgements” requires a four-part assessment: same factual and legal situation, predictability and no abuse

i) Same factual situation? (i.e. parallel patent rights infringed in an identical manner: here, the Spanish defendant was part of the same infringement chain, acting as a distributor of products manufactured by the other defendants; joint and several liability for damages);

(ii) Same legal situation? (in the case of Spain, implementation of the substantive rules set out in the Enforcement Directive);

(iii) Predictability? (did the Spanish defendants have to reasonably assume that they would be sued in the court of another Member State, such as the UPC?);

(iv) Is it abusive summoning of the Spanish defendant before the Court of another Member State?

The LD Milan declined to stay the proceedings due to the pending referrals made to the CJEU by the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) in Dyson v. Dreame (UPC_CoA_789/2025, UPC_CoA_813/2025) on March 6, 2026, finding that both referrals were different from the case at hand regarding the interpretation of Art. 8 (1) in conjunction with Art. 71b (2) BR (mn. 20 et seqq.).

First of its kind: Milan LD stays infringement proceedings for non-contracting Member State territory (Spain) due to second filed parallel national revocation action (Art. 24 (4), 30 BR, R. 295 RoP)

The Milan LD exercised its discretion under R. 295 RoP (CJEU in BSH v. Electrolux (C-339/22)) to stay the infringement action regarding Spanish territory until the irrevocable decision on validity of the national Spanish portion of the patent in suit. It hereby recognised the exclusive jurisdiction of the Spanish court over patent validity under Art. 24 (4) BR, even though the UPC was seized first (mn. 39 et seqq.).

The Milan LD acknowledges with regard to Art. 71c (1) BR that lis pendens and related-action rules of the BR (Arts. 29–32) apply in full to the relationship between the UPC and courts of non-contracting member states – with the UPC treated as a national court for these purposes (mn. 40).

It concluded that the pending Spanish invalidity proceedings and the UPC infringement action are closely related (Art. 30 BR), in particular same parties, same patent, and overlapping subject matter. However, albeit Art. 30 BR generally defers to the first court for related actions, the exclusive jurisdiction held by a second court takes precedence (mn. 41).