As patent holders navigate the evolving landscape of European litigation, they must understand how the Unified Patent Court’s long-arm jurisdiction reshapes cross-border enforcement and strategic patent protection.

Long-arm jurisdiction has been – once again – among the hot topics in Europe's patent dispute landscape since the beginning of 2025, following an important ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") and several decisions from various Local Divisions of the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") on this matter.

The notion of long-arm jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to rule on the alleged infringement of foreign patents. Long-arm jurisdiction is sometimes sought as a way to avoid the proliferation of (intra-EU or extra-EU) parallel litigation. In cases involving multiple national validations of the same European "bundle" patent, long-arm jurisdiction offers patentees the possibility to consolidate disputes into a single action before one court.

Further compounding the complexity, the UPC – a truly international court under the Unified Patent Court Agreement ("UPCA"), which is an international treaty and not an instrument of EU law – has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Unitary Patents and non-opted-out "bundle" European Patents. However, the UPC is also subject to the same jurisdictional rules under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ("Brussels Recast Regulation") as ordinary national courts of any EU Member State. This dual framework raises key questions about the interaction between the UPC's exclusive jurisdiction over certain patents and the general rules on international jurisdiction.  

Since January 2025, the CJEU and several Local Divisions of the UPC have issued landmark decisions confirming that long-arm jurisdiction is indeed possible under the Brussels Recast Regulation and applicable to UPC proceedings. These decisions confirm that the UPC may hear infringement claims concerning European patents validated in countries that are not signatories to the UPCA, whether they are EU Member States (such as Spain or Poland) or not (such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, or Turkey). It may even rule on the validity of patents validated in non-EU, non-Lugano Convention countries, although only with inter partes effects. In addition, a watershed decision issued by the Munich Regional Court (Landesgericht München) in September 2025 has applied the long arm jurisdiction to national infringement proceedings, granting a sweeping injunction over 22 European countries, further complicating the European litigation landscape.

We will now review those key decisions and draw some conclusions on how the long-arm jurisdiction may shape patent strategies in the future:

1. UPC Düsseldorf Local Division (Fujifilm v. Kodak), Decision of 25 January 2025

In Fujifilm v Kodak [UPC_CFI_355/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Decision of 28 January 2025], Fujifilm sued three Kodak entities – all domiciled in Germany – for infringement of a classic European "bundle" patent that had been validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. In turn, the defendants filed a revocation counterclaim ­– limited to the German validation – and challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over the infringement of the UK validation.

Referring to the CJEU decision GAT v LUK [C-4/03 - GAT], the UPC held that, pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the EU Member State where the patent is registered is limited to revocation claims and counterclaims, but does not extend to infringement actions. Jurisdiction over infringement and non-infringement actions is governed by the general rules under Article 4 of the Brussels Recast Regulation and may be therefore established based on the defendant's domicile in a Member State. The UPC noted that this provision "enables the patent holder to bring all his or her infringement claims before a single court and to obtain comprehensive relief from a single forum". Accordingly, since all three defendants were domiciled in Germany, the Düsseldorf Local Division was competent to decide on infringement of both the German and UK validations. Ultimately, the UPC dismissed the infringement action, as it found that the German validation was invalid, but the defendants had failed to establish that the outcome on the validity of the UK designation should be any different under UK law.  

2. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, Judgment of 25 February 2025

A few weeks later, the CJEU handed down the much-awaited ruling in BSH v Electrolux [C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB]. The CJEU confirmed that the courts of the EU Member State where the defendant is domiciled are competent to rule on the infringement by said defendant of a patent granted in another Member State or even in a third country. This applies even when the defendant challenges the patent's validity. However, in such cases, the CJEU distinguishes between patents registered in other EU Member States and those registered in non-EU countries. For EU-registered patents, exclusive jurisdiction to rule on validity remains with the Member State of registration, pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Brussels Recast Regulation. For non-EU and non-Lugano Convention patents, that provision is not applicable, since it only governs jurisdictional conflicts among EU Member States. Therefore, if the patent is registered in a non-EU country, the court of the EU Member State may still rule on the defendant's allegations of invalidity. However, such a ruling will have only inter partes effect and, accordingly, will not affect the existence of the foreign patent on its national register.

The CJEU also held that the court hearing the dispute may at its discretion stay the part of the proceedings concerning the foreign patent if a validity dispute is pending in the country of registration and there is a "reasonable and non-negligible chance" that the national court competent to determine validity may find the patent invalid.

Although BSH v Electrolux related to an infringement action brought before a Swedish national court, the criteria laid down by the CJEU apply equally to proceedings before the UPC.

3. UPC Local Division Paris (MUL-T Lock v IMC Creations), Order of 21 March 2025

In MUL-T Lock v IMC Creations [UPC_CFI_702/2024 (LD Paris), Order of 21 March 2023], the Paris Local Division was the first UPC division to apply BSH v. Electrolux. The defendants – Mult-T-Lock France and Mult-T-Lock Suisse – requested the UPC to decline jurisdiction over the UK, Spanish, and Swiss validations of a European "bundle" patent, since those three countries are not UPCA signatories. However, the Court found that it had jurisdiction over infringement of validations of "bundle" patents in EU Member States that are not party to the UPCA, as well as states bound by the Lugano Convention (such as Switzerland), provided that the defendant is domiciled in a UPCA Member State. This jurisdictional principle applies even when the validity of the patent is challenged. In such cases, the UPC has the discretion to stay infringement proceedings where there is a non-negligible and reasonable likelihood that the patent might be declared invalid by the competent court of the State in which it was granted.

4. UPC Local Division Milan (Dainese v Alpinestars), Order of 15 April 2025

Dainese filed an action against Alpinestars, domiciled in Italy, for patent infringement in the territories of the UPCA Member States and Spain [UPC_CFI_792/2024 (LD Milan), Order of 15 April 2025]. The defendant requested that the Milan Local Division refuse jurisdiction over the alleged infringement of the Spanish validation. The UPC, referring to the CJEU's ruling in BSH v Electrolux as well as previous decisions of the Düsseldorf and Paris Local Divisions, again confirmed that the UPC had jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning European patents validated in non-UPCA countries, such as Spain, since the defendant was domiciled in Italy.

5. UPC Local Division Hamburg (Dyson v Dreame International and others), Order of 14 August 2025

In Dyson v Dreame International [UPC_CFI_387/2024 (LD Hamburg), Order of 14 August 2025], the UPC's Hamburg Local Division ordered the first provisional measures covering both the UPC Member States and Spain, finding that establishing jurisdiction over the Spanish part of the bundle patent "requires at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts" in that country. In addition, the UPC discussed the notion of "anchor defendant", which had been previously hinted at by The Hague Local Division in Genevant & Arbutus v Moderna [UPC_CFI_191-192/2025, Procedural order of 23 May 2025]. In Dyson v Dreame International, the patentee filed an infringement action against four defendants: Defendant #1 was domiciled in Hong Kong (manufacturer and website operator in European countries), defendant #2 was domiciled in Germany (German distributor), defendant #3 was also domiciled in Germany (European authorised representative) and, lastly, defendant #4 was domiciled in Sweden (affiliate of the Hong Kong-based defendant). The UPC enjoined all four defendants with respect to the UPC territory. However, the Court found that defendant #1 (Hong Kong) could only be enjoined in respect of Spain because German defendant #3, the European authorised representative, could be considered an "anchor defendant", since it was an indispensable part of the distribution of the attacked embodiments – which require CE marking –  in the EU.

6. Munich Regional Court I (Regeneron v Formycon), Judgment of 25 September 2025

Regeneron v Formycon is the first application of BSH v. Electrolux in national infringement proceedings. The Munich Regional Court I (Landesgericht München) granted a sweeping injunction covering 22 European countries on grounds of their respective validations of a classic European "bundle" patent. The Munich Regional Court ruled that it will have jurisdiction over German defendants even if they are based in a district other than Munich. The Court applied foreign law on substantive issues of infringement. In doing so, it drew a distinction between substantive issues and rules governing "technical" or "formal" issues – the latter being decided exclusively under German law. It also found that the issue of validity in the context of injunction proceedings was a procedural question to be decided under German law. Regarding validity in the context of injunction proceedings, the Court found that this was a procedural question to be decided under German law. In this regard, the Court noted that a positive decision on validity from the German Federal Patent Court triggered urgency in respect of all national validations, attributing a "signal effect" or "lighthouse character" to that German law. The Court also ruled that the finding of validity under German law was an indicium of validity in the other European jurisdictions.

What can we expect from the long-arm jurisdiction in the future?

• Increased pressure to join the UPCA: long-arm jurisdiction undermines the sovereignty of those EU Member States that have so far declined to join the UPC system. Now, the UPC will paradoxically rule on infringement without those States having a say in the system. This may shape the incentives for those States to participate.
• Long-arm jurisdiction turned against the UPC: national courts have been quick to embrace the application of BSH v. Electrolux. The precedent laid down by the Munich Regional Court in Regeneron v Formycon, if confirmed on appeal, will re-shape litigation strategies by increasing the attractiveness of national courts and classic European patents over UPC litigation. In addition, creative strategies could arise, such as filing torpedo-style revocation and/or declaratory non-infringing actions before the national courts of non-UPC countries, to pre-empt the UPC from ruling on those national validations. Anti-suit injunctions may also flare up on some jurisdictions.  The genie is out of the bottle.
• Expansion of long-arm jurisdiction to the US?: a currently ongoing case before the Munich Regional Court I (Onesta v BMW) is the first attempt to extend the long-arm jurisdiction to two US patents, thus testing the waters of the reach of BSH v Electrolux in territories beyond Europe.  If successful, this will be a watershed moment for European patent litigation.
• Long-arm jurisdiction, short-sighted enforcement?: long-arm jurisdiction is a unilateral assertion of authority, and enforcement of such decisions may therefore face hurdles. These hurdles seem particularly likely where the jurisdiction of enforcement lies outside the EU and/or in cases where the defendants have disputed validity in respect of the long-arm country.
• Towards harmonisation or rather kaleidoscopic application of substantive law?: So far, infringement actions in respect of non-UPC territories such as Spain include dedicated arguments on substantive issues of infringement under the relevant domestic laws. This involves additional litigation effort, as substantive law must be pleaded under the UPCA Agreement and its applicable sources of law (Article 24 UPCA), but also pursuant to the domestic law of the long-arm jurisdictions. Therefore, it remains to be seen both the scope of domestic law applied by the UPC and, further, whether the UPC will be mindful of nuances in local law or, in practice, may apply a harmonised approach to the detriment of couleur locale. So far, the Munich Regional Court has seemed to relativise the nuances of local law in its landmark decision in Regeneron v Formycon.
• Approach to "anchor defendants": the UPC has taken a liberal approach towards "anchor defendants", citing criteria such as being the European registered representative (for household appliances which require CE marking) or holding a marketing authorisation for a pharmaceutical product and being responsible for its batch release. The UPC's approach to "anchor defendants" may also drive strategic decisions for American and Asian companies, such as domiciling their authorised representatives in certain EU jurisdictions.
• Approach to evidence of infringement outside of the UPCA-countries: in addition, the UPC's thresholds for establishing infringement in non-UPCA countries may evolve. In Dyson v Dreame International, the UPC was satisfied with "at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts" in Spain, but other cases may follow a stricter approach. At a national level, the Munich Regional Court once again relativized national nuances in Regeneron v Formycon.
• Approach on the stay of the proceedings: according to the CJEU in BSH v Electrolux, the UPC may at its discretion stay infringement proceedings if a validity dispute is pending in the country of registration and there is a "reasonable and non-negligible chance" that the patent could be found invalid in that country. It is unclear how the UPC will apply this in the future, e.g. de facto forcing the defendant to file a revocation action in the long-arm country to stay the UPC proceedings.
• Towards (further) international disputes: on 21 July 2025, the World Trade Organization published its Decision EU vs. China, which found China's antisuit injunctions to be contrary to several provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and is arguably at odds with some of the findings BSH v Electrolux, particularly regarding the jurisdiction to hear infringement actions based on patents registered in non-EU countries. Following the WTO ruling against China's antisuit injunction regime, the long-arm jurisdiction may become the next flashpoint in international IP law. The UPC's and some European court's expansive jurisdictional ambitions may trigger new tensions –or even formal disputes– before international bodies such as the WTO.