UPC_CoA_288/2025

The Court of Appeal dismissed Roku's appeal against the rejection of preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction and competence in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust. The Court upheld that R. 19.1 RoP provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for preliminary objections; Art. 31 UPCA jurisdiction rules are compatible with EU law and do not encroach on CJEU jurisdiction; the Administrative Committee was empowered under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement section for London; and a separate court fee is payable for each set of appeal proceedings. Roku's request for a single court fee covering multiple parallel appeals was also rejected. No costs were ordered as this order did not conclude the merits.

The Court of Appeal (in German) dismissed Roku's appeals against the refusal of its preliminary objections in the infringement actions by Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust before the Munich Central Division. The Court held: (1) R. 19.1 RoP contains an exhaustive list of preliminary objection grounds, including jurisdiction; (2) Roku's Art. 47(2) Charter/Art. 6 ECHR arguments do not constitute a R. 19.1 ground; (3) the Administrative Committee had competence under Art. 87(2) UPCA to designate Milan as the replacement Central Division seat for London; (4) Court fees must be paid separately per appeal proceeding even where the same parties raise the same issues. Roku was ordered to bear Dolby's and Sun's costs.