ARTICLE
24 March 2026

CoA, March 13, 2026, Order On Preliminary Objections Concerning International Jurisdiction, UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, UPC_CoA_925/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish...
Worldwide Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

The Statement of claim must already set out the facts and legal arguments establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish the UPC’s jurisdiction. That applies especially where the claimant seeks to extend the case beyond UPC territory and relies on Article 71b(3) Brussels Ia. Later-filed exhibits cannot cure an insufficient pleading on jurisdiction.

Article 7(2) Brussels Ia does not extend UPC jurisdiction beyond UPC territory

The Court of Appeal held that where the UPC’s international jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) Brussels Ia as the court of the place where the damage occurred or may occur, that jurisdiction is limited to damage within UPC territory. The Paris Local Division therefore erred in using Article 7(2) to uphold jurisdiction for alleged infringements in Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway and Poland.

Article 71b(3) Brussels Ia remained unproven, and French national jurisdiction rules do not help before the UPC

The Court left open the broader substantive reach of Article 71b(3), but held that Keeex had in any event failed to plead the necessary facts, including the presence of assets of sufficient value within UPC territory connected to the dispute. The Court also expressly held that the UPC, as a common court, cannot rely on Article 14 of the French Civil Code. On that basis, the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance order insofar as it had accepted jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of the patent.

2. Division

Court of Appeal, Panel 1d

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_922/2025
UPC_CoA_923/2025
UPC_CoA_924/2025
UPC_CoA_925/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against an order dismissing preliminary objections on internal and international jurisdiction in an infringement action

5. Parties

Respondent / claimant in first instance:
KEEEX SAS.

Appellants / defendants in first instance:
Adobe Inc.; Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd; OpenAI LP; OpenAI OpCo LLC; OpenAI Ireland Ltd; Truepic Inc.; Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC; Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 949 070

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 31 UPCA
Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA
Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012
Art. 71b(2) Regulation 1215/2012
Art. 71b(3) Regulation 1215/2012
R. 13.1(i) RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More