As previously discussed in articles such as The Unified Patent Court: How Will It Affect Turkey? by Gün + Partners, decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the infringement or validity of a European patent are not binding on the national courts of non-EU countries, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Türkiye. This reflects the principle of territoriality, which limits the jurisdiction of international courts to their member states. Although these countries are contracting parties to the European Patent Convention (EPC), their exclusion from both the European Union and the UPC system creates a procedural imbalance—an issue that has become more pronounced in light of the CJEU's recent ruling in Case C-339/22 (Electrolux v. BSH) and Article 71(3) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
In the context of European patents—one of the two main categories falling within UPC jurisdiction—the EU has taken steps to ensure that the UPC's reach extends beyond its member states. The rationale is that, since a European patent may be validated in multiple EPC countries, jurisdiction over its enforcement should not be limited only to those states party to the UPC Agreement. Although this principle is not explicitly stated in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, it was introduced through secondary legislation—specifically, Regulation (EU) No. 542/2014 of 15 May 2014, which amended Brussels Ibis.
Article 71b(1) of Brussels Ibis establishes that when national courts of an EU Member State party to the Agreement would have jurisdiction under the UPC framework, the UPC shall also have jurisdiction. Thus, the UPC inherits the jurisdictional reach of the national courts for matters falling within its competence.
More significantly, paragraph 3 of Article 71b introduces what can be described as the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction. It provides that if the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State and no jurisdiction can otherwise be established under Brussels Ibis, a common court—i.e., the UPC—that has jurisdiction over a European patent infringement causing damage within the EU may also hear claims for damages arising outside the EU from that same infringement.
While countries like Türkiye, the UK, and Switzerland have had to consider the implications of this extended jurisdiction, the CJEU's decision in Electrolux v. BSH has added another layer. The Court ruled that EU Member State courts have jurisdiction over infringement claims concerning a European patent granted in another EPC country—including non-EU states—even when the defendant challenges the patent's validity. This effectively enables EU courts to assess infringement across all designated states of a European patent, so long as the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State.
Taken together, Article 71(3) and the Electrolux ruling illustrate a jurisdictional landscape that is both expansive and fragmented. The former allows the UPC to assert jurisdiction over non-EU defendants in cross-border disputes, while the latter consolidates jurisdiction within the EU where the defendant is EU-domiciled.
For non-EU EPC contracting states such as Türkiye, the UK, and Switzerland—which are not parties to the UPC Agreement—this dual regime presents significant legal asymmetries. Companies domiciled in these countries may find themselves subject to centralized enforcement before the UPC, particularly if the alleged infringement causes harm within the EU. However, they cannot initiate proceedings before the UPC or benefit from the unified litigation mechanisms affirmed by the Electrolux judgment. Moreover, their national courts lack authority to adjudicate cross-border patent infringement within the EPC framework.
This situation underscores the transitional fragmentation in European patent enforcement. While the EPC harmonizes substantive patent law across its contracting states, procedural divergence—especially between EU and non-EU jurisdictions—leaves countries like Türkiye, the UK, and Switzerland exposed to one-sided enforcement without access to corresponding procedural remedies. The situation of Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland illustrates the need to reconcile the territorial nature of patent rights with the centralized judicial objectives of the Unified Patent Court and the evolving jurisdictional framework under the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
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.
