CD Milan, October 22, 2026, Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_2221/2026

1. Key takeaways

The UPC’s “inherent” jurisdiction to ensure its effectiveness: The jurisdiction extends to the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for declaration of non-infringement, the court may decline to dispose of the action (Rule 360 RoP) and determine that a patent lacked inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal by the patentee

The list in Art. 32(1) UPCA remains the starting point and defines the Court’s competence. However, the UPC’s jurisdiction needs to ensure the effectiveness of the judicial protection entrusted to it. Its jurisdiction thus extends to conduct designed to circumvent its exercise, including the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for a declaration of non-infringement, that jurisdiction may be exercised, in particular, by declining to dispose of the action under Rule 360 RoP and by determining that a patent lack(ed) inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal at