UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 360/2026

Jan 31, 2026·EP2005696: APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Marcus Grosch
Division
Hamburg LD
Technology
Software & Computing · Cybersecurity · Telecommunications
Language
English
First decided
Jun 8, 2026
Last decision
Jun 10, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-06-10
    Infringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Security for costs under R. 158 RoP and Art. 69(4) UPCAWhether U.S. (Florida) domicile alone justifies a security for costs orderWhether pledging of all patent portfolio assets and income to third parties renders a claimant effectively assetlessBalancing claimant's right to effective remedy (Art. 47 Charter) against defendants' interest in cost protectionDetermination of case value for security amount calculation
    Damages:
  • 2026-06-08
    Appeal decisionInfringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues: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 countriesJurisdiction 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 jurisdictionDistinction between Art. 4 (domicile) and Art. 8(1) (close connection) jurisdiction under Brussels IaPreliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Note2026-06-15Not public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Counterclaim for revocation2026-06-11Not public
Statement of defence2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-11Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-10Not public
Order2026-06-10Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-08Not public
Order2026-06-08Public
Receipt2026-04-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-29Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-29Not public
Receipt2026-04-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-29Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-29Not public
Receipt2026-04-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-28Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-28Not public
Document Claimant2026-04-28Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-15Not public
Receipt2026-04-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-15Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-15Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-14Not public
Receipt2026-04-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-10Not public
Preliminary objection2026-04-10Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-10Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-10Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-10Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-04-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-31Not public
Order2026-03-31Public
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-30Not public
Further pleadings2026-03-30Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-23Not public
Receipt2026-03-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-20Not public
Application document Defendant2026-03-20Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-03-13Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-24Not public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-02-24Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-17Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-10Not public
Receipt2026-02-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-04Not public
Other document Claimant2026-02-04Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-02Not public
Receipt2026-01-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-31Not public
Fee2026-01-31Not public
Proof of payment2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-31Not public
Statement of claim2026-01-31Not 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