- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in China
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Intellectual Property, Environment and Law Department Performance topic(s)
The Hague Local Division (LD) of the UPC granted a permanent injunction last week applying long-arm jurisdiction to several non-UPCA and non-EU states (the UK Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Norway and Poland) in relation to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf (HL Display v Black Sheep Retail products UPC_CFI_386/2024 UPC_CFI_610/2024, The Hague LD, 10 October 2025).
The LD held that HL Display's patent EP2432351B1 for a shelf accessory system was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products (BSRP) by BSRP's shelf accessory system. The court issued an injunction and ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and dismissed BSRP's counterclaims for revocation and non-infringement. The court held that the injunction was still justified even though there had been a "cease and desist" undertaking.
The court, applying the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction in conjunction with the CJEU's BSH/Electrolux decision, stated:
"The Defendant, domiciled in the Netherlands, rightfully did not dispute the international and relative competence of this (Local Division of the) Court. This also applies to the long arm jurisdiction of the Court regarding countries outside UPC Territory where the patent is valid, notably Liechtenstein, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Switzerland and United Kingdom where the patent is valid.
At the hearing, the court raised the issue of the defence of invalidity for the non-CMS in view of the ECJ ruling in the BSH/Electrolux case. The defendant clarified that its counterclaim for revocation only pertained to the CMS; for the non-CMS, it was to be considered a defence. The defendant also clarified that no revocation claims had been instituted in any of the non-CMS countries. The Court therefore assumes competence for hearing the infringement claims regarding all designated countries in the EP, even if they are not UPC contracting member states. Regarding non-CMS EU or Lugano Member States, however, the Court will evaluate whether there is a serious, non-negligible chance that the competent national court will invalidate the patent. Regarding non-EU Member States, the Court may make an inter partes decision on validity."
The Hague LD concluded that it was clear the patent is to be held valid. This meant that the court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in relation to the UPC contracting member state (CMS) EPs. For the EU member states in which the patent is in force, that are not UPC CMS, as well as the Lugano member states, the Court found there was "no serious, non-negligible chance the patent will be revoked by the competent national court". Equally, for the other states in which the patent is in force, the Court held inter partes that the patent is valid. The injunction was therefore awarded for all the territories where the EP was in force, including (via its long-arm jurisdiction) countries not party the UPC Agreement: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.
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.
