All insights
AnalyticsPublished

Long-Arm Jurisdiction at the UPC: What the Case Law Adds Up To

Since BSH v Electrolux, the UPC has ruled on non-UPC countries in 56 decisions across 21 disputes. Most of the record comes from a handful of cases.

By

An order of the Munich Local Division, dated 17 September and reported this month, made headlines by extending a preliminary injunction to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein in Oxford Nanopore v MGI. Pinsent Masons called it "the first published decision in which the UPC has extended a preliminary injunction to the UK". It is the latest step in a line of cases that law firms have followed closely since the Court of Justice of the EU decided BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux (C-339/22) in February 2025.

Most of that commentary, rightly, is about doctrine: what the court may do, and where the limits lie. This piece adds a count. How often has the UPC actually ruled on countries outside its own territory, and how much of the record rests on a few disputes?

The commentary from the leading firms broadly agrees on where things stand after the Court of Appeal's decision in Fujifilm v Kodak of 2 June 2026:

  • The UPC can hear infringement of non-UPC designations of a European patent when the defendant is domiciled in UPC territory. That includes EU states outside the system, such as Spain, Ireland and Poland, and non-EU states such as the UK, Switzerland and Türkiye.
  • Validity is split. For designations in EU or Lugano Convention states, the UPC cannot rule on validity, though it keeps jurisdiction over infringement. For states outside both, such as the UK, it may assess validity between the parties.
  • No escape through forum non conveniens. As Freshfields and Taylor Wessing both note, a defendant cannot ask the UPC to decline simply because a national court elsewhere would be better placed.
  • Foreign infringement still has to be proven under the applicable national law. Blanket requests covering many countries are not enough.
  • Anchor defendants can bring non-EU parties into the case. In Dyson v Dreame, an EU-based co-defendant allowed the Hamburg Local Division to reach a Hong Kong manufacturer for Spain. The Court of Appeal has since referred questions on who can serve as an anchor to the Court of Justice.

The UPC is not alone. Clifford Chance points to the Munich Regional Court's cross-border injunction covering 22 countries in Regeneron v Formycon (September 2025). And as IPKat reported, the Swiss Federal Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over 19 countries in July 2026, though it refused the injunction on the merits.

The count: 56 decisions, 21 disputes

We counted every UPC decision in our records whose reasoning engages a non-UPC designation, an anchor-defendant argument to reach one, or the BSH line directly. Up to mid-October 2026:

  • 56 distinct decisions engage a non-UPC country.
  • They come from 21 disputes, counting each set of parties once across first instance, appeals and related dockets.
  • Three disputes, Fujifilm v Kodak, Hurom v NUC and Dyson v Dreame, account for 45% of those decisions.

So the case law is thinner than the volume of commentary suggests. A large share of what practitioners cite comes from three fights, one of them heavily litigated at every level.

The trend: new disputes each year

YearNew disputes engaging a non-UPC country
20230
20242
202512
2026 (to mid-October)7

The jump in 2025 follows BSH. In 2026 the flow has continued at a similar pace rather than accelerating. Ten divisions have dealt with the question so far, counting the Court of Appeal, with Mannheim the busiest.

Jurisdiction accepted is not relief obtained

The more important pattern is the gap between accepting jurisdiction and granting an order a patentee can use.

In most disputes, the court accepted that it could hear the foreign claim. Far fewer ended with an enforceable order for a non-UPC country:

  • In Fujifilm v Kodak, jurisdiction over the UK part was accepted at every level, but the Court of Appeal set aside the UK injunction.
  • In several cases, foreign claims were heard and then lost on the merits, or infringement in the foreign country was simply not proven.
  • Others were refused, stayed, deferred to the main proceedings, withdrawn or settled before the foreign part was decided.

That is why Oxford Nanopore v MGI matters. It is a rare case where a patentee left with an order covering the UK and other non-UPC states, at least for now.

What practitioners take from this

  • For patentees, long-arm reach is real but evidence-hungry. As Pinsent Masons notes on the MGI decision, whether the foreign requests are well founded is decided under national law, and the evidential burden is significant.
  • For defendants, the question has moved from "can the UPC hear this?" to "has the claimant proven infringement under each national law?". That is where most foreign claims have failed.
  • For everyone, a handful of disputes still shape the law. Each new Court of Appeal ruling and the pending reference to the Court of Justice can move the boundary.

What to watch

  • The Court of Justice reference on anchor defendants, including whether the anchor rules apply to preliminary injunctions.
  • More preliminary injunctions reaching the UK, following Oxford Nanopore v MGI, and how UK courts respond.
  • Whether national courts, such as Munich and the Swiss Federal Patent Court, become the preferred route for patents or countries the UPC cannot reach.

How we counted

We read each candidate decision and kept those whose reasoning engages a non-UPC designation, an anchor-defendant argument used to reach one, or the BSH line. A decision issued on several dockets or in several languages counts once. The count is a floor, not a ceiling: a decision that applies cross-border reach without discussing it may be missed.

Sources

JurisdictionForum Strategy

Related insights

See the data behind the analysis.

Every article here is built on UPClytics — cross-case UPC analytics on divisions, judges, firms, and outcomes.