As previously reported here, the UPC has, at first instance at least, confirmed a long held belief (often referred to as the UPC long arm jurisdiction) that UPC decisions can also have effect in non-UPC member states.
On 2 April 2025, the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued procedural orders in UPC_CFI_365/2023 and UPC_CFI_359/2023, separating the UK-related claims and counterclaims from two infringement actions brought by Fujifilm against Kodak, concerning EP3511174 and EP3476616, respectively.
The orders followed the delivery of the ECJ's judgment in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which concerns the UPC's jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. As this judgment was handed down after the oral hearings on Fujifilm v Kodak had concluded, the Court held it would be procedurally inappropriate to apply the decision without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on its implications.
To avoid delay in resolving the remaining issues, the Court severed the UK-related parts into separate proceedings. We look forward to developments on the now separate Fujifilm v Kodak proceedings covering solely the UK, even though the UK is not a UPC member state.
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.
