Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 9th March 2026
This edition addresses internal competence under Art. 33.1(b) UPCA, the territorial preconditions for unitary effect, the limits of enforcing UPC decisions beyond UPC territory, and the consequences of limiting a Unitary Patent while pursuing infringement claims concerning non-UPC states.
Local Division Paris (UPC_CFI_1963/2025, Order of 17 February 2026)
In Valeo v Bosch, the Paris Local Division rejected a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP and clarified the meaning of “same alleged infringement” in Art. 33.1(b) UPCA. Several Bosch entities had argued that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence because different defendants were allegedly involved in different product variants and distribution channels, such that the action did not concern the “same alleged infringement”. The Court rejected that interpretation as adding an unwritten requirement to the provision. It held that the decisive point is that all defendants are alleged to infringe the same patent; Art. 33.1(b) does not require identity of accused products, identical commercial roles, or identical territorial conduct. Different embodiments, different positions in the supply chain, and the fact that not every defendant is implicated in relation to every product do not preclude application of the provision.
>> to the decision
Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_8/2026, Decision of 9 February 2026)
In Papst Licensing v EPO, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a request for unitary effect for EP 3 327 608 and clarified an important eligibility requirement for unitary patents. The patent originated from a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, when Malta had not yet joined the EPC and therefore could not be designated. By the time of grant in 2025, however, Malta had become both a participating Member State in the unitary patent system and a UPCA contracting state. Because the granted patent did not cover Malta, the EPO refused registration of unitary effect. The Court of Appeal confirmed that this refusal followed directly from Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012, which requires a European patent to be granted with the same set of claims in respect of all participating Member States.
>> to the decision
Local Division Mannheim (UPC_CFI_365/2023, Order of 30 January 2026)
The Court drew a clear distinction between the UPC’s jurisdiction to decide on foreign infringement and the separate question whether such decisions can be coercively enforced abroad. Within UPC territory, UPC decisions are immediately enforceable. Outside the UPC system, however, coercive enforcement of UPC orders – particularly penalties for non-compliance with an injunction concerning foreign territory – requires prior recognition by the courts of the state concerned, unless an applicable recognition regime provides otherwise. At the same time, the Court accepted that disclosure obligations may still extend to foreign sales where that information is needed to quantify damages for infringing acts committed within UPC territory.
>> to the decision
Local Division Paris (UPC_CFI_702/2024; UPC_CFI_369/2025, Decision of 16 January 2026)
In IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock France, the Paris Local Division dealt with infringement of a European patent with unitary effect together with additional national validations, including Switzerland. The patent had been unconditionally limited during the UPC proceedings. The Court held that the limitation of the Unitary Patent took effect retroactively from the date of grant, with the result that the limited claim set governed the infringement analysis within UPC territory for the entire period since grant. For the Swiss national part, however, it drew a strict distinction: infringement had to be assessed on the patent as granted, because the limitation affected only the Unitary Patent and did not alter the Swiss validation. The Court nevertheless declined to rule on Swiss infringement. It reasoned that the proprietor’s decision to limit the Unitary Patent created a non-negligible risk that the broader granted Swiss claims would be revoked by the competent Swiss authorities, while the UPC itself had no jurisdiction to decide validity for the Swiss part. Although it indicated that, in principle, a serious validity risk for a non-UPC designation could justify staying infringement proceedings pending a decision by the courts of the relevant state, no revocation action was pending in Switzerland. In those circumstances, the Court did not stay the Swiss part but dismissed it outright.
>> to the decision