LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025

1 Key takeaways

According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State

The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation to assess its own jurisdiction, even if the claimant did not explicitly invoke all relevant legal grounds.

It is sufficient to substantiate in the statement of claim that the defendant allegedly infringes the patent-in-suit in a Contracting Member State where the patent is valid. Whether the defendant is factually involved in infringing activities is a question for the merits, not the preliminary stage. The defendant's right to be heard is not violated if they had ample opportunity to argue their case.