LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026

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.

Explore Firm Details

Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in South America
in South America
with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).

The Court held that R. 13.1(i) RoP requires the claimant to provide the relevant facts enabling the Court to assess jurisdiction. It is the Court’s duty to identify and apply the correct law (iura novit curia). The claimant was therefore not barred from invoking Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation for the first time in its reply to the preliminary objection.

Defendants domiciled in a UPCA Member State can anchor jurisdiction for the entire UPC territory under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation.

As the UPC is a court with territory encompassing all Contracting Member States, defendants sued under their universal jurisdiction (Art. 4 Brussels Ibis Regulation) can function as anchors for the entire UPC territory vis-à-vis a defendant registered in a third country. No examination of the plausibility of infringing acts (of the anchor defendant) in each individual Contracting Member State where an injunction against the anchored defendant is sought is required to establish jurisdiction for the anchored defendant regarding all Contracting Member States (cf. CoA, Order of 6 March 2026 – Dyson v. Dreame, UPC_CoA_789/2025 & 813/2025; CoA, Order of 2 June 2026 – Kodak v. Fujifilm, UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al.).

Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation only provides jurisdiction regarding acts of infringement occurring in Contracting Member States, not in non-UPCA countries such as the UK.

Confirming CoA, Order of 13 March 2026 – KEEEX v. Adobe et al. (UPC_CoA_922 – 925/2025), the Court found that Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation only confers jurisdiction regarding acts of infringement in Contracting Member States. Since the UK is not a Contracting Member State, jurisdiction over the UK national part of the patent could not be established on this basis.

For long arm jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation, claimants must substantiate joint infringing acts of the anchor defendant and the anchored defendant in that specific non-UPCA country.

The Court distinguished between Art. 4 and Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation: under Art. 4, the jurisdictional link is established by domicile alone. Under Art. 8(1), however, when long arm jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation is sought for a non-UPCA country, the claimant must allege facts showing joint infringement by the anchor defendant and the anchored defendant in that country. The claimant had not alleged any facts showing that the defendants domiciled in Germany together with the defendant domiciled in the US jointly infringed the UK part of the patent. Independent actors infringing different national parts in different countries, without acting jointly in the targeted non-UPCA country, do not meet the Art. 8(1) threshold.

2. Division

Local Division Hamburg

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_360/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Preliminary Objection (R. 19 RoP) in main infringement action

5. Parties

Claimant: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC
Defendant 1: Infoblox Inc. (Applicant of the Preliminary Objection)
Defendant 2: Infoblox Germany GmbH
Defendant 3: Nomios Germany GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 005 696

7. Jurisdictions

Germany, France, Finland (jurisdiction confirmed for Defendant 1)
United Kingdom (jurisdiction denied for Defendant 1)

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 13.1(i) RoP, R. 19.1(a) RoP, Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 34 UPCA, Art. 4(1)

Brussels Ibis Regulation, Art. 7(2)

Brussels Ibis Regulation, Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation, Art. 71a

Brussels Ibis Regulation, Art. 71b(1)

Brussels Ibis Regulation, Art. 71b(2)

Brussels Ibis Regulation.

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.

[View Source]

LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026

Contributor

1. Key takeaways

Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).

Defendants domiciled in a UPCA Member State can anchor jurisdiction for the entire UPC territory under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation.

Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation only provides jurisdiction regarding acts of infringement occurring in Contracting Member States, not in non-UPCA countries such as the UK.

For long arm jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation, claimants must substantiate joint infringing acts of the anchor defendant and the anchored defendant in that specific non-UPCA country.

2. Division

3. UPC number

4. Type of proceedings

5. Parties

6. Patent(s)

7. Jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Intellectual Property

Contributor

Germany