UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Jul 22, 2025

UPC_CFI_662/2025

ALLOCATION OF PREAMBLE SEQUENCES

InfringementMain Infringement ActionMannheim LDInfringementWritten Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

Nokia challenged Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and multiple Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart branded entities for infringement of EP 3 799 333 (preamble sequence allocation, telecoms/SEP). The Mannheim Local Division rejected the defendants' preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction, holding that each brand group's EU-based subsidiaries share a sufficient business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that aligned parallel sales activities under the same patent allegation satisfy the 'same infringement' requirement without requiring complete identity of acts.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • UPC jurisdiction over all Geely group defendants under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA based on business relationship and same infringement allegation

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Note: Court found that corporate group members selling the same branded vehicles share a 'business relationship' within the meaning of Art. 33(1)(b) and face the same infringement allegation even if their individual acts differ in form.

  • Complete identity of infringing acts is not required; parallel and aligned distribution activities suffice for 'same infringement allegation'

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Note: Court held that the infringement allegation need only be 'aligned in purpose' (gleichgerichtet) rather than identical; selling the same branded product in different EU countries satisfies this requirement.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants (Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd.)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Reason: Court confirmed that non-EU domiciled parent companies cannot alone anchor jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b); jurisdiction was established via the EU-domiciled subsidiaries in Germany.

  • Business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the Geely conglomerate

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA

    Reason: Court held it was sufficient that each brand group's subsidiaries had the required relationship among themselves; cross-brand-group relationships need not be established for a single consolidated action to be competent.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Business relationship under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA: membership in the same corporate group with aligned commercial activities (R&D, manufacturing, sales of the same products) is sufficientSame infringement allegation does not require complete identity of infringing acts; aligned/parallel acts directed at the same objective sufficeNon-EU-domiciled parent companies do not independently ground jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b); jurisdiction flows from EU-domiciled subsidiariesJurisdictional assessment at the preliminary stage uses a 'cursory look' standard without pre-judging the merits

Browse other cases on this principle.