UPC CFI 575/2025

Mannheim Local Division has competence over Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on sufficiently asserted German infringement

Note: Court found that Honeywell's allegation that the allegedly infringing telescopic belt conveyor was marketed Europe-wide, with six named German clients, was sufficient to establish competence without pre-judging the merits.

International jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast

Note: Court held that Honeywell's allegation that Hemtech commits infringing acts in a contracting member state was sufficient at this stage; whether Hemtech actually infringes is a merits question.

Competence assessment should use a 'cursory look' standard without comprehensive evidence evaluation

Note: Court applied the Court of Appeal's standard that jurisdictional competence should be established by a preliminary review of allegations, not a full merits assessment.

Case against Sovex (D1) should be transferred to The Hague as Sovex is domiciled in the Netherlands

Reason: Court held that Art. 33(1)(a) competence based on infringement in Germany is equal in hierarchy to Art. 33(1)(b) domicile-based competence; no hierarchy exists between the two grounds, and German infringement was sufficiently asserted.

Art. 33(1)(a) must be interpreted restrictively as a lex specialis requiring a specific territorial connection analogous to CJEU Kalfelis restrictive interpretation of Art. 7(2) Brussels I

Reason: Court, following Court of Appeal case law, held there is no hierarchy between Art. 33(1)(a) and (b) and that sufficiently asserting infringement in Germany is enough at the jurisdictional stage.

CJEU reference on Art. 32 UPCA and Art. 71a-71b Brussels I is necessary

Reason: Court declined the referral request citing ample existing UPC Court of Appeal case law resolving the issues.