Overview · Filed: Apr 22, 2024
UPC_CoA_188/2024
Method for presenting rate-adaptive streams
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Court of Justice EU · 7
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast | international jurisdiction; place of harmful event | Binding | Art. 7 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 71b Abs. 1 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia ist dahin auszulegen, dass das EPG für eine Verletzungsklage international zuständig ist, wenn das vom Kläger geltend gemachte europäische Patent in mindestens einem Vertragsmitgliedstaat Wirkung entfaltet |
| Art. 71b Brussels I recast | jurisdiction of UPC under Brussels I recast | Binding | Art. 7 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 71b Abs. 1 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia ist dahin auszulegen, dass das EPG für eine Verletzungsklage international zuständig ist |
| Art. 30(2) Brussels I recast | related proceedings; discretionary stay | Binding | Art. 30 Abs. 2 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia, wonach sich ein Gericht für unzuständig erklären kann, wenn das zuerst angerufene Gericht für ein im Zusammenhang stehendes Verfahren zuständig ist |
| Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast | international jurisdiction; place of harmful event for patent infringement | Binding | Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action |
| Art. 71b Brussels I recast | jurisdiction of UPC under Brussels I recast | Binding | Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction |
| C-283/81 | acte clair; no need to refer to CJEU when no reasonable doubt as to correct interpretation | Persuasive | see CJEU 6 October 1982, Case-283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, CILFIT, paragraph 21 |
| C-561/19 | acte clair; no need to refer to CJEU | Persuasive | CJEU 6 October 2021, C-561/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:799, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi |
EPC article · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 33 UPCA | jurisdiction; place of actual or threatened infringement | Binding | Der Ort, an dem 'die tatsächliche oder drohende Verletzung erfolgt ist oder möglicherweise erfolgen wird' im Sinne von Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ ist in gleicher Weise auszulegen wie der Ort |
| Art. 33 UPCA | jurisdiction; place of actual or threatened infringement | Binding | the place 'where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur' as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place 'where the harmful event occurred or may occur' of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation |
| Art. 26 UPCA | indirect infringement | Binding | alleging an indirect infringement within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA. |
Rules of Procedure · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| RoP_rule 19 | preliminary objections; exhaustive list | Binding | Die Liste der Einsprüche in R. 19.1 VerfO ist als abschließend zu betrachten. Die Anwendung der R. 19 bis 21 VerfO kann sich daher nicht über andere Erwiderungen wie missbräuchliches Verhalten im Verfahren und offensichtliche Unbegründetheit erstrecken. |
| RoP_rule 19 | preliminary objections; exhaustive list | Binding | The list of preliminary objections of R. 19.1 RoP must be regarded as exhaustive. The application of R. 19 to 21 RoP cannot therefore extend to other defences |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_APP_51844/2024 Munich LD | Feb 14, 2025 | jurisdiction | Binding | This list of grounds for preliminary objection set out in Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive, which is why a preliminary objection cannot be based on other grounds (Court of Appeal, CoA_188/2024, Grounds for the Order of 03.09.2024 - Aylo/Dish). |
| UPC_APP_28294/2024 Munich LD | Jun 20, 2025 | place of infringement under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA construed like Art. 7(2) Brussels Ia | Binding | Der Ort, an dem 'die tatsächliche oder drohende Verletzung erfolgt ist' im Sinne von Art. 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ ist in der gleichen Weise auszulegen wie der Ort 'an dem das schädigende Ereignis eingetreten ist' im Sinne von Art. 7 Nr. 2 Brüssel Ia VO (Berufungsgericht, Anordnung v. 03.09.2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024 – Dish/Aylo |
| UPC_APP_58871/2024 Hamburg LD | Dec 18, 2024 | jurisdiction over internet-based infringement; place of damage | Persuasive | the likelihood of such damage arises from the possibility of using services from a website accessible within the territory of the Contracting Member State (comp. Court of Appeal, Order of September 03, 2024, CoA_188/2024). |
| UPC_APP_61580/2024 Munich LD | Jun 20, 2025 | jurisdiction; place of infringement interpreted as place of damage under Brussels Ibis | Binding | Der Ort, an dem die tatsaechliche oder drohende Verletzung erfolgt ist ... im Sinne von Art. 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGUE ist in der gleichen Weise auszulegen wie ... Art. 7 Nr. 2 Bruessel Ia VO (UPC_CoA_188/2024 - Dish/Aylo) |
| UPC_CFI_575/2025 Mannheim LD | Oct 22, 2025 | Art.33(1)(a) UPCA — place of infringement interpreted like Art.7(2) Brussels I recast | Persuasive | The Defendants refer to the order by the Court of Appeal of 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024, para. 26) where the Court of Appeal has ruled that the place 'where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur' as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place 'where the harmful event occurred or may occur' of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation |
| UPC_CFI_575/2025 Mannheim LD | Feb 12, 2026 | jurisdiction — whether infringement in fact occurred to be decided on merits | Persuasive | Whether Hemtech is in fact involved in infringing activities is to be decided in the case on the merits (CoA 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, Aylo v Dish, para 18). |
| UPC_CoA_288/2025 Court of Appeal | Oct 6, 2025 | exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections under R. 19.1 RoP | Binding | R. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections (see order of 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo v. Dish, para. 32). |
| UPC_CoA_288/2025 Court of Appeal | Oct 6, 2025 | exhaustive list of grounds for preliminary objections | Binding | R. 19.1 VerfO enthält einen abschließenden Katalog der zulässigen Einspruchsgründe (vgl. Anordnung vom 3. September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, APL_21943/2024, Aylo gegen Dish, Rn. 32). |