| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_22894/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division ruled that Qualcomm's preliminary objection challenging the validity of the withdrawal of an opt-out for EP 1 875 683 was inadmissible under Rule 19.1 RoP, and confirmed that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective. |
| 2025-08-25 | UPC_APP_22897/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Preliminary objection by Qualcomm entities (Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH) challenging jurisdiction dismissed by judge-rapporteur. Defendants argued that the withdrawal of the opt-out of EP 1 552 399 by a UPC representative (Ms Huang) was invalid for lack of power of attorney. The court held that a registered UPC representative (Art. 48 UPCA, R. 5.3(b)(i) RoP) does not need a written mandate for opt-out withdrawal; formal requirements were met and the patent falls within UPC jurisdiction. Appeal against this decision was not allowed. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_28294/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected Motorola's preliminary objection to jurisdiction, holding that the court had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringing acts in Germany, and allowed proceedings to continue. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_61580/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Preliminary objection by Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Flextronics International Europe B.V. challenging jurisdiction of Munich Local Division was rejected in Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola entities (EP 3 110 069). The court held: (1) Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA jurisdiction is established by the claimant's credible assertion of infringement in Germany, including delivery of devices; (2) Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 UPCA does not narrow the rule for multiple defendants where each infringes in Germany or has seat there; (3) Flextronics as logistics provider for Motorola was plausibly alleged to have participated in infringement, supporting Munich jurisdiction. Appeal not allowed. |
| 2025-06-20 | UPC_APP_30222/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections to jurisdiction filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and related entities against Headwater Research LLC's infringement action (UPC_CFI_149/2024). The court upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for defendants that committed infringing acts in Germany and are domiciled there, and also upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA (with a narrower interpretation) over the remaining defendants including Digital River Ireland Ltd. Leave to appeal was not granted. |
| 2025-05-27 | UPC_APP_16032/2025 | Hamburg LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Hamburg Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (Einspruch) filed by Epson entities in Dolby International AB's infringement action, finding no substantial doubts about the validity of Dolby's withdrawal of opt-out, and ordering the proceedings to continue with the statement of defence as the next step. |
| 2025-05-23 | UPC_APP_19773/2025 | The Hague LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order of The Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities concerning lipid nanoparticle delivery technology. The order addresses preliminary objections and jurisdictional matters concerning certain Moderna entities (Moderna Spain, Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway), examining whether their activities constitute or enable infringement within the UPC territory. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_11261/2025 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich ruled on preliminary objections filed by BioNTech and Pfizer entities challenging UPC jurisdiction over Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine variants sold before 1 June 2023, addressing the UPC's temporal jurisdiction in relation to the opt-out regime and the date of UPC operation. |
| 2025-04-17 | UPC_APP_11293/2025 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Kupecz) deferring the preliminary objection by BioNTech and Pfizer defendants to be dealt with in the main infringement proceedings. Promosome LLC sued BioNTech/Pfizer for infringement of EP 2 401 365 (mRNA patent) via Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccines. Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over acts committed before 1 June 2023. The court found the objection admissible but ordered it to be resolved in the main proceedings (R. 20.2 RoP). Jurisdiction over acts from 1 June 2023 onward was uncontested. |
| 2025-04-15 | UPC_APP_55795/2024 | Milan LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Milan Local Division dismissed Alpinestars Research's preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement of European patents validated in Spain (a non-UPC contracting state). The court held, following the CJEU decision in C-339/2022, that the UPC has universal jurisdiction over European patents under Brussels I Regulation (recast) where the defendant is domiciled in a UPC member state, including for non-UPC validated patents such as in Spain. |
| 2025-04-08 | UPC_APP_61708/2024 | Milan LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Order of the Milan Local Division dismissing a preliminary objection (Rule 19 RoP) filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division over infringement of EP 4 072 364 validated in Spain. The Court held that, following the CJEU judgment in C-339/22, the UPC as court of the defendant's domicile has universal jurisdiction over infringement of European patents including those validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain. |
| 2025-04-03 | UPC_APP_8203/2025 | Mannheim LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order by Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_819/2024, 3 April 2025) dismissing preliminary objections by Hisense, TCL and LG defendants in Corning's infringement action for EP 3 296 274 (glass sheets in LCD TVs). Defendants argued as distributors they had no knowledge of the manufacturing process and that three separate infringement forms could not be tried in one action (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA). The court rejected these arguments. |
| 2025-04-02 | UPC_APP_13067/2025 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division rejected Ascendis Pharma's preliminary objection to jurisdiction in the infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical concerning EP 3 175 863 (C-Type Natriuretic Peptide variants for achondroplasia treatment). The court found that the opt-out withdrawal was effective and that sufficient acts of infringement were alleged in Germany. |
| 2025-03-21 | UPC_APP_10014/2025 | Paris LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Local Division rejected Mul-T-Lock France's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over infringement of national (non-unitary) designations of EP 4 153 830 in Spain, the UK and Switzerland, confirming the UPC's competence to hear infringement of all national parts of the patent within UPC Member States. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_47532/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division (Panel 2) dismissed Roku's preliminary objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP, rejecting arguments based on alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU primary law and ECHR, and confirming jurisdiction based on plausible allegations of infringement in Germany. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_45195/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division dismissed Roku's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in the infringement action brought by Dolby International AB, rejecting arguments that (i) the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, (ii) Art. 47(2) EU Charter / Art. 6(1) ECHR is violated, and (iii) the Munich Local Division lacks territorial jurisdiction. The court confirmed that incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law is not a valid ground under R. 19.1 RoP, and that for jurisdiction purposes it suffices that the claimant credibly alleges an infringing act in Germany. |
| 2025-03-18 | UPC_APP_47531/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_254/2024) dismissing Roku's preliminary objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP against Sun Patent Trust's infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267. The Court ruled that: (1) alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU primary law is not a valid ground for preliminary objection; (2) a preliminary objection cannot be based on a violation of Art. 47(2) EU Charter or Art. 6 ECHR; (3) proof of the representative's authority for the opt-out withdrawal need not be included with the statement of claim unless challenged; and (4) for jurisdiction, only a plausible allegation of infringement is required. |
| 2025-03-17 | UPC_APP_66363/2024 | Hamburg LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division (UPC_CFI_169/2024) on a preliminary objection by MediaTek challenging international jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the objection, confirming UPC jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b(2) Brussels-Ia Regulation, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction for all patent infringements committed in a UPC Member State regardless of the defendant's domicile. |
| 2025-02-14 | UPC_APP_51844/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division rejected the preliminary objection of eight Myriad Genetics defendants challenging UPC jurisdiction and the claimant's standing to sue, holding that questions of standing and entitlement to asserted claims relate only to the merits and not to jurisdiction under Art. 32 UPCA. |
| 2025-02-12 | UPC_APP_67626/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur rejected the defendants' preliminary objection (admissibility challenge under Art. 33(2) UPCA) to the infringement action filed by biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, confirming the Munich Local Division's jurisdiction over the claim and ordering that the statement of claim was validly served on 2 December 2024. |
| 2025-02-10 | UPC_APP_45481/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Order of the Munich Local Division (judge-rapporteur) rejecting a preliminary objection filed by defendants ILME S.p.A. and ILME GmbH against Claimant PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH's infringement action. The court dismissed the preliminary objection and all auxiliary requests, and continued the main proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted under Rule 220.2 RoP, as the court found the legal question concerning UPC jurisdictional rules (specifically interpretation of the UPCA as an international treaty measured against the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) may be significant for many cases and warrants uniform application. No preliminary reference to the CJEU under Art. 21 UPCA was warranted. |
| 2024-12-18 | UPC_APP_58871/2024 | Hamburg LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Procedural order of the Hamburg Local Division rejecting a preliminary objection (Rule 19 RoP) filed by defendants Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo (director), and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s patent infringement action. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding: (1) an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction over director liability claims as well; (2) the question whether a director can be held personally liable is a matter of the merits, not of jurisdiction. The court confirmed the Hamburg Local Division's competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on the place where the alleged infringement may occur (Germany). Leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2024-12-03 | UPC_APP_56246/2024 | Milan CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Milan Central Division rejected GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.'s preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in the revocation action UPC_CFI_476/2024 (EP 4 183 412 — a vaccine-related patent owned by GSK). GSK argued that a parallel infringement action by Pfizer before the Düsseldorf Local Division challenged the Central Division's competence over the revocation action. The Court held that the infringement action appeared inadmissible when lodged (filed on 5 August 2024, before the patent was granted on 14 August 2024) and therefore could not challenge the Central Division's competence over the revocation action under Art. 33 UPCA. The request for a hearing before deciding the preliminary objection was also rejected. |
| 2024-10-29 | UPC_APP_10381/2024 | Nordic-Baltic RD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division rejected Sioen NV's preliminary objection in the patent infringement action brought by TEXPORT, finding that parallel Belgian proceedings (for non-infringement declaration regarding the Belgian part of the patent) did not preclude UPC jurisdiction over infringements in Latvia and Portugal under Arts. 29–31 of Brussels I Recast. |
| 2024-09-25 | UPC_APP_48805/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division dismissed the request by Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH (co-claimant 2) to have Vibrantz's counterclaim for revocation rejected as obviously unfounded or inadmissible, holding that the counterclaim was properly directed against the registered patent proprietor. |
| 2024-05-10 | UPC_APP_3514/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Paris Central Division dismissed a preliminary objection by Tandem Diabetes Care contesting the UPC's jurisdiction based on an alleged violation of a standstill agreement before filing the revocation action by Roche Diabetes Care, ruling that breach of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the court's jurisdiction. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11857/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552669, rejecting challenges to standing, admissibility of pre-2022 damages, and the sufficiency of the infringement read, while deferring jurisdiction objections relating to UK-territory claims to a later stage. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11863/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1552399, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11845/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | The Munich Local Division partially dismissed preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP1875683, rejecting challenges on substantially the same grounds as in the parallel proceedings concerning EP1552669 and EP1552399. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11850/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Local Division Munich resolved preliminary objections filed by Volkswagen, Audi AG, and Texas Instruments defendants in NST's infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683, rejecting jurisdiction and standing challenges and finding that a detailed infringement read on one example device is sufficient at the pleading stage to cover a list of accused devices. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11854/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Order by Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_513/2023, 8 May 2024) dismissing preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Texas Instruments entities in NST's infringement action for EP 1 552 669 B1. Substantially the same as the companion order in UPC_CFI_514/2023: opt-out withdrawal was valid; NST had standing to sue including for pre-assignment infringement. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11795/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (full panel, Zigann presiding) on preliminary objections by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH, and on requests under R. 361 RoP, in infringement proceedings by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The R. 361 requests to declare the action manifestly inadmissible or unfounded were dismissed. The preliminary objections (R. 19 RoP) were partially dismissed with the remaining jurisdictional issue deferred to the main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred to main proceedings. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11791/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division order (full panel, Pichlmaier as judge-rapporteur) on preliminary objections and R. 361 requests by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Inc. and TI Deutschland GmbH in a second infringement action by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683. Identical in substance to the parallel case (UPC_APP_12101/2024): R. 361 requests dismissed; preliminary objections partially dismissed with residual jurisdiction/assignment issues deferred to main proceedings. Leave to appeal granted. Costs deferred. |
| 2024-05-08 | UPC_APP_11861/2024 | Munich LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Munich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections (Rule 19 RoP) and requests to declare the action manifestly bound to fail (Rule 361 RoP) filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against Network System Technologies LLC's infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399. The court held that NST has standing to sue based on the patent assignments; infringement allegations need only be detailed for one exemplary device at this stage; the jurisdiction objection relating to UK/TI damages claims was deferred to the main proceedings; leave to appeal was granted. |
| 2024-05-02 | UPC_APP_8708/2024 | Paris CD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Dismissed | Paris Central Division order rejecting Mala Technologies' preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the UPC over Nokia's revocation action (ACT_595045/2023) concerning EP 2 044 709. Mala Technologies (defendant/patent proprietor) had argued the UPC lacked jurisdiction and sought a stay pending a German Federal Court of Justice decision (X ZR 6/24) in parallel revocation appeal proceedings. All requests were rejected: the preliminary objection was dismissed, the stay applications were denied, and the request to extend the deadline for the defence to revocation was also rejected. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental issues about the relationship between UPC proceedings and national courts. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_12563/2024 | Paris LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | The Paris Local Division rejected multiple defendants' (ARM group) preliminary objections to jurisdiction, ruling that where one defendant has its residence within the territorial scope of the local division, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA applies regardless of where other defendants are based, and that belonging to the same corporate group with related commercial activities constitutes a sufficient 'commercial relationship' for multi-defendant proceedings. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9340/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_504/2023) on a preliminary objection under R. 21.2 RoP concerning the language of proceedings. The order addressed service of the Statement of Claim on multiple defendants in the Roche Diabetes Care v. Tandem Diabetes Care and others case concerning EP 1 970 677. |
| 2024-04-11 | UPC_APP_9705/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Preliminary objection | motionName.jurisdictional | Procedural only | Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed preliminary objections concerning the language of proceedings in infringement case UPC_CFI_504/2023 (patent EP 1 970 677, glucose monitoring device). The court upheld German as the language of proceedings as chosen by claimant Roche, rejecting defendants' requests (VitalAire, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland, Dinno Santé) to change the language to English. The defendants' preliminary objection was also ruled out of time due to a failure to deliver the objection papers to the Sub-Registry during its opening hours. |