Scales of justice representing the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and current developments in European patent litigation

Court of Appeal extends jurisdiction of the Central Division for infringement actions

/in ,

New jurisdiction rules open up additional litigation options. Patent holders now have more flexibility in choosing a court.

In public discourse around the UPC, the Local Divisions are associated with infringement actions and the Central Divisions with stand-alone nullity actions.

However, the Central Division (with sections in Paris, Munich and Milan, whereas their competence depends on the IPC class of the patent-in-suit) is competent to hear infringement actions in case the defendant is domiciled outside of UPC territory and also lacks a principal or any place of business thereon (Art. 33 para.1 subpara 3 UPCA).

As there is no scenario where the Central Division is competent to hear an infringement action but a Local (or Regional) Division is not (as an infringement action requires an actual infringement or threat thereof, meaning a Local Division is always competent to hear the case pursuant to Art. 33 para.1 lit.a) UPCA), a patent holder has the right to choose between a Local Division and the Central Division in scenarios where the Central Division is competent.

However, in light of the apparent limitations above (no domicile or place of business of the defendant in UPC territory), it appeared that the number of scenarios where the Central Division is competent in the first place was limited, since usually there is a multitude of defendants (in order to cover the whole supply chain), and usually at least one of the defendants has its domicile or place of business on the territory of the UPCA.

Therefore, the question whether Art. 33 para.1 subpara 3 UPCA also applies in cases where at least one of the defendants is domiciled outside of UPC territory, even if the other defendants are domiciled within, reached the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal answered this question with a yes (UPC-CoA-4/2026. UPC-CoA-13/2026, order of 22 June 2026[1]. The provision was held to be not an exception but an alternative to the jurisdiction of the Local Divisions, as its wording contains no corresponding limitation. The anchor-defendant mechanism of Art. 33 para.1 lit.b) UPCA was argued to apply by way of analogy. The stated purpose is to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions as otherwise cases might have to be brought before several Local Divisions.

The Court of Appeal therefore extends the competence of the Central Division significantly.

For patent holders who now have the right to choose between a Local Division and the Central Division, specifically the following strategic considerations apply:

  • Familiarity with and expertise of the legal judges of the Central Division: this applies especially where the competent Local Division would be a division with a low case number, where the case management and legal opinions of the judges might not be easily foreseeable
  • Language: before the Central Division, the language of the patent-in-suit applies. This may e.g. be a consideration for German SMEs who have filed their EPs in German, and where German is not a language which the competent Local Division offers.

Source: [1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/ORDER_VALEO%20v%20BOSCH_004%20and%20013-2026_2026-06-22_FR_Signed.pdf