Skip to content
patentino

Topic dossier

International jurisdiction and competence of the divisions in UPC case law

How the UPC's first-instance divisions and the Court of Appeal decide on jurisdiction and competence: international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 4, 7(2), 8(1), 24(4), 71b), long-arm jurisdiction for non-UPC states after CJEU C-339/22 – BSH v Electrolux, competence of the divisions (Art. 32, 33 UPCA) including counterclaims and referral (Art. 33(3)), sections of the central division and the opt-out (Art. 83 UPCA).

decisions in the dossier
175
of them Court of Appeal
29
steps of the test
7
As of
6 Oct 2026

The steps of the test

The dossier orders the decisions by the steps of the legal test. For each step: the question it is about and the number of decisions addressing it.

  1. 1. Framework and standard of review

    Under which rules (Art. 31, 32 UPCA, Brussels Ia, Lugano) and with which standard of review does the UPC decide on its jurisdiction?

    116 decisions

  2. 2. International jurisdiction under Brussels Ia

    Does the UPC have international jurisdiction: domicile of the defendant, place of infringement, several defendants?

    77 decisions

  3. 3. Long-arm jurisdiction for non-UPC states

    Can the UPC rule on infringement in non-UPC states (e.g. UK, Spain, Switzerland, Poland), and what about validity there?

    39 decisions

  4. 4. Competence of local and regional divisions (Art. 33 UPCA)

    Which division is competent: place of infringement, defendant's residence, several defendants, choice of division?

    76 decisions

  5. 5. Central division and its sections

    When is the central division competent, and which section (Paris, Munich, Milan) decides?

    18 decisions

  6. 6. Counterclaims, referral and concentration

    How do a counterclaim for revocation and pending actions affect competence (Art. 33(3)–(5) UPCA)?

    38 decisions

  7. 7. Opt-out and transitional regime (Art. 83 UPCA)

    Does the UPC have jurisdiction despite an opt-out or national proceedings; when is an opt-out valid or its withdrawal barred?

    47 decisions

Selected passages

One decision per step – Court of Appeal first, then the most cited, then the newest – with a verbatim quote from the decision. The selection is not a legal assessment.

Step: Framework and standard of review

“Das EPG ist ein gemeinsames Gericht im Sinne von Art. 71a Abs. 1 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia (Art. 71a Abs. 2 Buchst. a der Verordnung Brüssel Ia). Das EPG ist daher zuständig, wenn die Gerichte eines Vertragsmitgliedstaates nach der Verordnung Brüssel Ia für eine Klage im Sinne von Art. 32(1) EPGÜ zuständig wären (Art. …“
Court of Appeal, 3 Sept 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, para. 11 · Decision on the UPC website

Step: International jurisdiction under Brussels Ia

“The jurisdiction concerning the action against Teqphone and Dreame Technologies arises from the fact that these parties are domiciled in Contracting Member States of the UPCA, respectively, Germany and Sweden“
Court of Appeal, 6 Mar 2026, UPC_CoA_789/2025, para. 2 · Decision on the UPC website

Step: Long-arm jurisdiction for non-UPC states

“It follows that where a national court would have jurisdiction under the Br I Regulation in relation to a European patent validated outside its own in territory, this jurisdiction is similarly conferred on the UPC (insofar as this European patent has not been opted out).“
Court of Appeal, 2 Jun 2026, UPC_CoA_312/2025, para. 1 · Decision on the UPC website

Step: Competence of local and regional divisions (Art. 33 UPCA)

“For the purpose of establishing the competence of a local division, there is no hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. …“
Court of Appeal, 28 Nov 2025, UPC_CoA_317/2025, para. 58 · Decision on the UPC website

Step: Central division and its sections

“Edwards’ appeal against the impugned competence order must be dismissed. The Central Division correctly concluded that it was competent to hear the direct revocation action pursuant to Art. 33(4) first sentence UPCA, under which revocation actions shall be brought before the Central Division.“
Court of Appeal, 25 Nov 2025, UPC_CoA_464/2024, para. 26 · Decision on the UPC website

What patentino offers on this topic

  • The full dossier in the app: all 175 decisions per step, with a short summary marked as AI, verbatim-checked quotes with paragraph numbers and the appeal status.
  • Research for your own case: describe the facts in your own words or upload a brief – patentino finds the matching decisions and checks every passage against the decision text.
  • In your AI tool: via the MCP server, the topic_dossier tool retrieves this dossier directly in Claude, Langdock or Copilot Studio.
Request access See an example

More topics

Quotes are verbatim from the decisions; the version published by the court is authoritative. Not legal advice. Coverage and numbers