Latest News.
UPC: Jurisdiction for infringement actions against several companies located domestically and abroad (Local Division Munich)
In a decision dated 20 June 2025, the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on several preliminary objections to its international jurisdiction. The decision concerns a cross-border patent infringement action against four different companies.
1. Facts of the case
The Claimant alleges that various mobile devices infringe its European patent. The complaint was directed against: Two affiliated companies based in the USA (Defendants 1 and 2), a German distribution company belonging to the same group (Defendant 3), and a Dutch logistics company (Defendant 5), which was allegedly involved in the distribution of the devices.
In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant had cited Art. 33 (1) lit. b UPCA as the basis for the jurisdiction of the Local Division Munich. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19 RoP, contesting jurisdiction and arguing, inter alia, that there was no relevant business relationship between the Defendants. The Claimant then supplemented its submission in the Statement of Defence with Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA referring to a specific delivery of a mobile device to Munich.
2. Decision of the Local Division Munich
The Local Division Munich rejected the Defendant’s preliminary objection. The preliminary objection of Defendants 1 and 2 was already inadmissible as they only filed their objection after the one-month period had expired. The preliminary objection of Defendants 3 and 5, on the other hand, was admissible but not well-founded.
a) Defendant 3 (German distribution company)
With regard to the German subsidiary, the Local Division Munich derived its jurisdiction directly from Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 1 UPCA. As Defendant 3’s principal place of business is in Germany, a German Local Division has local jurisdiction irrespective of the specific place of infringement. The further complaint of a lack of substantiation of the infringement allegations was irrelevant to the examination of jurisdiction.
b) Defendants 1 and 2 (US companies)
The court has already dismissed the preliminary objections of Defendants 1 and 2 as inadmissible. Defendants 1 and 2 did not file their preliminary objections until after the one-month time period pursuant to R. 19.1 RoP had expired. In cases of service outside the Contracting Member States, it is the actual service that matters, as the 10-day fiction under R. 271 (6) (b) RoP only applies to service within the Contracting Member States, not outside them. Defendants 1 and 2 did not comply with the one-month time limit based on the actual service of the Statement of Claim.
Notwithstanding this, the Court examined the merits of the preliminary objection alternatively. The Court found that the Local Division Munich had jurisdiction over the complaint against these two Defendants pursuant to Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 UPCA. The decisive factor was that one of the co-defendants (Defendant 3) has its registered office in Germany and that a business relationship within the meaning of the UPCA exists between the Defendants, as well as the fact that the same infringement allegation is made. The Chamber clarified that the requirements for a “business relationship” should not be set too high. An intra-group relationship and division of labour in the context of distribution are already sufficient.
c) Defendant 5 (Dutch logistics company)
The Munich Local Division affirmed jurisdiction for Defendant 5 on the basis of either Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 or lit. a UPCA. Although Defendant 5 does not belong to the same group as the other Defendants, the Court nevertheless found that a business relationship existed within the meaning of Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 UPCA, as the company operates as a logistics service provider for the group throughout Europe.
In the alternative, the Court also affirmed jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA, as Defendant 5 also supplied the devices to Germany. In this context, the Court emphasised that the examination of jurisdiction did not depend on proof of infringement, but only on the Claimant’s submission.
This is also not contradicted by the fact that the Claimant only relied on the jurisdiction of Art. 33 (1) lit. b UPCA in the Statement of Claim. It is true that R. 13.1 (n) RoP presupposes that the Claimant must already make legal submissions with the Statement of Claim. However, this does not require the Claimant to anticipate all possible lines of defence. R. 13.1 (n) RoP does not prevent the Claimant from further specifying their defence or responding to objections raised by the Defendant.
3. Conclusion
The decision of the Local Division Munich is in line with the previous UPC case law and demonstrates that the UPC is a forum for efficiently bundling cross-border patent infringement proceedings in one place. The decision provides practical guidance on the following points in particular:
- The time period for filing a preliminary objection begins with the actual service in cases involving service outside the Contracting Member States. Entries in the CMS are not relevant.
- The requirements for a “business relationship” within the meaning of Art. 33 para. 1 lit. b sentence 2 UPCA should be interpreted broadly and include intra-group and logistical links.
- In principle, additional jurisdictional provisions can be invoked during the proceedings, even if they were not expressly mentioned in the Statement of Claim. However, for reasons of legal prudence, both of the jurisdictional elements set out in Art. 33 (1) UPCA should be invoked in the Statement of Claim, if possible.