UPC Court of Appeal: Guidelines on Long-Arm Jurisdiction

With its decision in Fujifilm v. Kodak (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, and UPC_CoA_882/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal has established a structured framework for future long-arm disputes.

Introduction

In its decision of 2 June 2026 in Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal further developed the practical framework for claims concerning non-UPC designations of European patents.

The starting point is no longer whether the UPC may, in principle, deal with such claims. Following the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux and the subsequent UPC case law, this question has largely been answered. The more relevant issue is how such claims are to be assessed once relief extending beyond UPC territory is sought.

For a discussion of the foundations laid by BSH v Electrolux and the first UPC decisions applying that judgment, we refer to our earlier articles:

Background: Kodak’s preliminary injunction proceedings

The case arose from proceedings between Fujifilm and Kodak concerning printing plate technology. The Mannheim Local Division had granted Fujifilm injunctive relief, including relief extending to the United Kingdom.

Kodak appealed. While the Court of Appeal ultimately set aside the injunction, the broader significance of the decision lies less in the outcome of the preliminary injunction proceedings and more in the Court’s treatment of long-arm claims generally.

The judgment demonstrates that, once jurisdiction has been established, claimants remain subject to strict requirements regarding proof, attribution and the applicable foreign law.

A more structured framework for long-arm claims

The decision demonstrates that long-arm litigation before the UPC is increasingly developing into a distinct procedural framework. Rather than focusing exclusively on jurisdiction, the Court addresses a broader set of questions that arise once claims concerning non-UPC patent designations are brought before the UPC.

The Court’s reasoning suggests that at least four issues must be analysed separately:

whether the UPC has jurisdiction;
whether the relevant foreign patent designation should be treated as valid for purposes of the proceedings;
whether the alleged foreign acts can be attributed to the respective defendant; and
whether infringement in the foreign territory has actually been established under the applicable law.

This structured approach is likely to influence future long-arm cases beyond the specific facts of the Kodak dispute.

Infringement remains a territory-specific inquiry

One of the important practical messages concerns proof of infringement.

The Court appears unwilling to infer infringement in a non-UPC territory merely because comparable acts have been established within UPC territory. Rather, the claimant must establish the relevant acts in the foreign state and demonstrate why those acts satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

This maintains the evidentiary burden in long-arm cases and underlines that jurisdiction does not create any presumption in favour of infringement.

Group structures do not eliminate the need for attribution

The decision also highlights the importance of attribution, particularly in disputes involving corporate groups.

The Court’s reasoning suggests that activities carried out by one group company cannot automatically be attributed to another entity merely because both belong to the same corporate structure.

Claimants seeking extra-territorial relief must therefore carefully establish the role of each defendant and the connection between the alleged foreign acts and the specific entity against whom relief is sought.

Foreign law remains relevant

The decision further confirms that foreign law remains relevant in long-arm litigation and may be decisive to the outcome of the case.

At the same time, the Court did not address the extent to which parties may proceed on the basis that the laws of EPC states lead to materially similar results unless specific differences are identified by the opposing party. Certain first-instance UPC decisions have adopted approaches that reduce the need for extensive proof of foreign law unless concrete divergences are raised. The Court of Appeal neither endorsed nor rejected such approaches.

The requirements for pleading and proving foreign law therefore remain an evolving aspect of UPC long-arm litigation.

As the Kodak proceedings illustrate, a claimant may overcome jurisdictional objections and still fail because the substantive requirements of the applicable law have not been met.

Practical implications

The decision marks an important shift from jurisdictional theory to jurisdictional application.

For claimants, the focus will increasingly be on proving foreign acts, identifying the responsible entities and addressing issues of foreign law.

For defendants, the judgment confirms that even where jurisdiction itself is difficult to challenge, substantial defences remain available, including challenges based on attribution, proof and applicable national law.

The Court of Appeal therefore appears to be moving long-arm litigation away from abstract jurisdictional debates and towards a more conventional merits-based analysis.

Conclusion

The significance of Fujifilm v Kodak lies less in the outcome of the preliminary injunction proceedings and more in the guidance it provides for future long-arm litigation.

The Court of Appeal confirms that the discussion has moved beyond the question whether the UPC may hear claims relating to non-UPC patent designations. The more important question is how such claims are to be assessed.

By emphasising the separate roles of jurisdiction, validity, attribution and foreign-law infringement analysis, the Court provides a more structured framework for future long-arm disputes. For litigants, this may ultimately prove more important than the outcome of the Kodak case itself.