UPC Court Of Appeal Outlines Criteria For Jurisdiction Between UPC Courts And The Links Enabling Multiple Defendants To Be Sued In One Court Including Those Not Domiciled In The UPC

In decisions that will be welcomed by those seeking to streamline proceedings in the UPC and sue multiple defendants in one court, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) has 

• taken a very broad approach in outlining what may qualify as a "commercial relationship" between multiple defendants sufficient to allow a single UPC court to take jurisdiction over them all, including those not domiciled in UPC member states, under Art 33(1)(b) UPC Agreement (UPCA) (Valeo v Bosch UPC_CoA_50/2026, 22.06.2026); and 
• asserted that the choice of court division was open – as long as one defendant qualified to have its case brought before a particular local division or regional division or even a seat of the central division, all the defendants could be brought before that particular court (Valeo v Bosch UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026, 22.06.2026).

On the nature of qualifying commercial relationships, the CoA held that being in the same group of companies or pursuing the same objective, including research and development or providing marketing services for an infringing product even if not specifically part of a supply chain, may allow multiple defendants to be sued in the same proceedings, including those domiciled outside the UPC where there are "anchor" defendants domiciled in the UPC. 

Art 33(1)(b) also requires that the same alleged infringement be involved. The CoA identified this requirement as satisfied if the acts relate to the same patent and the same product or range of products, finding that the same product(s) condition can be established provided the "products at issue appear to be substantially the same", irrespective of their trade names and without it being necessary to establish that these products are marketed through the same supply and distribution channels. 

Rachel Montagnon, HSF Kramer's IP Knowledge Counsel, commented: 

"This clarification by the CoA will be welcomed by patentees seeking to streamline proceedings and bring all potential defendants to the same location for determination of infringement and effective action against supply chains and others supporting infringing activity."

Read more below on the CoA’s decisions and their implications below (and on a parallel CoA decision between the same parties where the CoA confirmed that the UPC central division can also have jurisdiction where there are defendants domiciled outside the UPC territory).

The CoA's findings on "commercial relationship" and "same alleged infringement" criteria for Art 33(1)(b) jurisdiction  

In order to sue multiple defendants (wherever domiciled) in one location in the UPC, the existence of a "commercial relationship" with another infringing party that is domiciled in the UPC member state (an "anchor defendant") where the proceedings will be brought is required under Art 33(1)(b). This provision determines the choice of court within the UPC but it applies also to the collation of proceedings against non-UPC domiciled defendants where there is an anchor defendant domiciled in one of the UPC states and the same infringing act is involved. 

Article 33 UPCA

Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance

1. Without prejudice to paragraph 7 of this Article, actions referred to in Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f) and (g) shall be brought before:
   1. the local division hosted by the Contracting Member State where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur, or the regional division in which that Contracting Member State participates; or 
   2. the local division hosted by the Contracting Member State where the defendant or, in the case of multiple defendants, one of the defendants has its residence, or principal place of business, or in the absence of residence or principal place of business, its place of business, or the regional division in which that Contracting Member State participates. An action may be brought against multiple defendants only where the defendants have a commercial relationship and where the action relates to the same alleged infringement. [emphasis added]

Commercial relationship: The UPC CoA gave guidance in the appeal of a preliminary objection in Valeo v Bosch (UPC_CoA_50/2026), a dispute over the infringement of a patent for windscreen wiper technology, on the interpretation of “commercial relationship” and "same alleged infringement" in Art 33(1)(b) (above), holding that the criterion of a commercial link here "implies the existence of relations between the defendants concerning commercial activities relating to the product or range of products alleged to be infringed, such as research and development, manufacture, sale and distribution of those products":

• a "commercial relationship", as required under Art 33(1)(b) UPCA: 
  • may be established where defendants belong to the same group of companies (provided that it can be established that the activity of each defendant belonging to that same group relates to the product or range of products alleged to be infringed); or
  • may be direct or indirect: 
    • It may exist through other companies within the same group of companies or via third-party intermediaries, provided that 
      • all the defendants are pursuing the same objective and 
      • the activities in question relate to the product or range of products alleged to be infringed. 
    • In this regard, it is not necessary, in order to establish the existence of a commercial link, for the defendants to be part of the same supply chain or for the anchor defendant to be involved in the various supply chains.
  • same objective: In terms of the "same objective" criteria, the CoA held that a "commercial link" for the purposes of Art 33(1)(b) can exist where a third-party intermediary is involved or where the parties are connected through activity such as "research and development, manufacture, sale and distribution of those products" provided this condition is met.
• Same alleged infringement: The CoA held that the other requirement under Art 33(1)(b) that the action relates to "the same alleged infringement", is satisfied if the acts relate to the same patent and the same product or range of products. The same product(s) condition can be established provided that (on the basis of a summary assessment at the preliminary objection stage), the "products at issue appear to be substantially the same", irrespective of their trade names and without it being necessary to establish that these products are marketed through the same supply and distribution channels.

The CoA’s assessment of the existence of a "commercial relationship" in this appeal: The CoA held that in this case: 

• there was a commercial link between all of the defendants (who were both UPC domiciled and non-UPC domiciled), since although defendants Bosch France and Bosch China were not directly involved in the supply chain for each product alleged to be infringing, both were involved in the marketing of certain of the allegedly infringing products; and
• there was the "same alleged infringement" here 

and so dismissed the appeal of the preliminary objection, finding that the Paris LD has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action.

CoA confirms the choice of jurisdiction of the central division (as well as local or regional divisions) where some defendants are not domiciled in the UPC 

In an appeal of a preliminary objection in a parallel action brought by Valeo against the same Bosch entities (both UPC domiciled and non-UPC domiciled), in relation to a different patent for windscreen wipe technology and in relation to the same infringing products, the CoA declared the Paris central division (CD) was competent to hear the infringement action in relation to all the defendants (Valeo v Bosch UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026).

The subject of the appeal had been the interpretation of the third paragraph of Art. 33(1) UPCA, which states:

"Actions against defendants having their residence, or principal place of business or, in the absence of residence or principal place of business, their place of business, outside the territory of the Contracting Member States shall be brought before the local or regional division in accordance with point (a) of the first subparagraph [ie on basis of location of infringement] or before the central division."

The CoA held that this does not constitute an exception to the jurisdiction of local and regional divisions, and neither its wording, nor its position within Art. 33(1), supports treating the CD's competence as an exception where defendants are domiciled outside UPC territory. In such a situation, the CD is competent as a substitute for a local or regional division, where the commercial link and same alleged infringement criteria of Art. 33(1)(b) apply to all defendants. 

Thus where there are defendants who could normally (individually) be under the jurisdiction of the central division (eg those not domiciled in the UPC or those domiciled where the UPC does not have a local or regional division covering their UPC member state), proceedings against multiple defendants can be brought in the CD (against all the defendants, domiciled in the latter states or UPC LD/RD provided states or non-UPC states) as long as they are in a commercial relationship and the same infringement is involved (as discussed above). Thus either the local division (or regional) or central division could be available as the court in which to bring proceedings against all the defendants together. 

In this decision the CoA emphasised the need "to avoid parallel proceedings before different divisions and the risk of conflicting decisions that might result therefrom". This was, after all, one of the reasons the UPC was set up in the first place. 

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.