UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 360/2026

Jan 31, 2026·EP2005696 · APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Jun 8, 2026
Last decision
Jun 10, 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
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Daniel Severinsson—Locked
Judge Andrea Perronace—Locked

At the UPC: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC (5 cases)·Infoblox Inc. (3 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2073/2026·UPC CFI 360/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-06-10
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hamburg Local Division ordered the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for the Defendants' legal costs in the amount of EUR 200,000, pursuant to R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while the Claimant's U.S. domicile in Florida alone did not justify a security order, the fact that all of the Claimant's assets (essentially a patent portfolio) were pledged to third parties rendered it effectively assetless, warranting the order. The security must be provided within four weeks by deposit into the UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed institution.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP and Art. 69(4) UPCA
    • Whether U.S. (Florida) domicile alone justifies a security for costs order
    • Whether pledging of all patent portfolio assets and income to third parties renders a claimant effectively assetless
    • Balancing claimant's right to effective remedy (Art. 47 Charter) against defendants' interest in cost protection
    • Determination of case value for security amount calculation
  • 2026-06-08
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Hamburg Local Division granted in part the preliminary objection by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company), dismissing the claims against it as inadmissible for lack of international jurisdiction insofar as they relate to the UK national part of EP2005696, because the claimant failed to allege facts showing Infoblox Inc. jointly infringed the UK part together with the anchor defendants (Infoblox Germany GmbH and Nomios Germany GmbH). The remaining parts of the preliminary objection were dismissed, and the costs of the preliminary objection were treated as costs of the main proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • International jurisdiction over non-EU defendant (Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation)
    • Anchor defendant doctrine under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation for UPC proceedings involving non-UPCA countries
    • Jurisdiction over UK national part of a European Patent (non-UPCA, non-EU territory)
    • Requirement to plead joint infringing acts in the target country for Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia jurisdiction
    • Distinction between Art. 4 (domicile) and Art. 8(1) (close connection) jurisdiction under Brussels Ia
    • Preliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)
Documents
Show all 129 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Summons to oral hearing2026-10-15Not public
Summons2026-10-15Public
Receipt2026-10-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-12Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-10-12Not public
Communication2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-08-25Not public
Receipt2026-08-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-11Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-08-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Defendants 2 and 3 (domiciled in UPCA Member States) can serve as anchors for Defendant 1 (US company) for jurisdiction over UPCA territory under Art. 4 Brussels Ia, without needing to assess plausibility of infringing acts

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 4 Brussels Ia Regulation; Art. 31 UPCA

  • The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction over Defendant 1 for the UK part of EP2005696 should succeed because claimant did not allege facts showing joint infringement of the UK part by Defendant 1 with the anchor defendants

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The anchor defendant jurisdiction established via Art. 4 Brussels Ia for Defendants 2 and 3 automatically extends to cover the UK national part of the patent without any further assessment of infringing acts in the UK

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation

  • The fact that all three defendants independently infringe different national parts of the patent by selling/marketing/deploying Infoblox Software is sufficient to establish close connection under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation

  • Defendant 3 being named on a website operated by an American owner is relevant to establishing jurisdiction for the UK part

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation