UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 2228/2025

Dec 23, 2025·EP3393001 · APPARATUS FOR MANAGING SECONDARY BATTERY

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
  • Instruments
    Measurement
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
English
First decided
May 19, 2026
Last decision
May 27, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Alain DumontLockedLocked

At the UPC: BMS Innovations, LLC (4 cases)·BYD Company Ltd (4 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The judge-rapporteur ordered claimant BMSI to provide security for BYD's legal costs and other expenses in the amount of EUR 350,000 pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. The security must be provided within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued dismissing BMSI's claims.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Security for costs under Rule 158 RoP
    • Quantum of security for costs (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation)
    • Timeframe for provision of security
  • 2026-05-19
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The court partially allowed BYD's preliminary objection on jurisdiction. It declined jurisdiction over BYD UK (domiciled in the UK) because the alleged infringing acts were confined to UK territory with no connection to UPC territory. The jurisdiction challenge regarding BYD Company and BYD Auto (Chinese entities) for alleged UK infringement was deferred to the main proceedings, and the main proceedings continue against defendants 1–7 and 9.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • International jurisdiction of UPC over UK-domiciled defendant for acts solely in UK territory
    • Application of Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast (multi-party jurisdiction) to non-EU defendants
    • Scope of Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast for courts common to several member states
    • Long-arm jurisdiction over Chinese entities for alleged UK infringement
    • Whether to refer questions on Art. 8(1) and 71b(2) Brussels I Recast to CJEU
Documents
Show all 167 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-10-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-19Not public
Application document Defendant2026-10-19Not public
Communication2026-10-18Not public
Summons to oral hearing2026-10-15Not public
Receipt2026-10-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-14Not public
Document2026-10-14Not public
Receipt2026-10-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-14Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The UPC has no jurisdiction over BYD UK because BYD UK's alleged infringing activities are confined to UK territory, there is no connection to UPC territory, and BYD UK could not reasonably expect to be sued before the UPC for such acts

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 4, Art. 7(2), Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast

  • The combination of Art. 71b and Art. 8(1) Brussels I Recast cannot be used to create jurisdiction for acts that have no connection with the territory of the UPC

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 8(1) and Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The LD The Hague may assume jurisdiction over BYD UK under Art. 8(1) Brussels I in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Brussels I because other defendants allegedly infringe in the UK as well

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1) and Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast

  • Questions on long-arm jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) and 71b(2) Brussels I Recast should be referred to the CJEU at this stage

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 8(1) and Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast