In Keex v. Adobe & Ors, the UPC CoA clarified that where the UPC has jurisdiction based on it being the court of the place where the damage occurred or is threatened to occur, this does not automatically extend to infringement in territories that are not member states of the UPC. Further, while there are certain circumstances under which this jurisdiction can be extended, reliance on the relevant statutory provisions, and evidence that the conditions required for them to apply are satisfied, needs to be pleaded in the Statement of Claim.
In Dyson v. Dreame, the UPC made its first referral to the CJEU regarding whether the UPC's jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant insofar as it extends beyond the UPC may be derived from a connection to the acts of an alleged intermediary, in this case the EU authorised representative, over which it would have jurisdiction by virtue of its domicile in a UPC contracting member state.
Alternatively, the CJEU was asked if the UPC nevertheless has the power to grant provisional measures in respect of such acts. The CJEU will also answer whether the EU authorised representative is an intermediary whose services are being used to infringe and is therefore capable of being subject to a preliminary injunction.
The Scope of Article 7(2) Brussels and the importance of pleading your full case up-front
Keex SAS v. Adobe Inc. & Others, UPC_CoA_922-925/2025, March 13, 2026
Background
Keex SAS (Keex) brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division (Paris LD) against a number of technology firms including Adobe, OpenAI and Truepic, concerning alleged infringement of European patent (EP) 2 949 070, relating to a method for externally verifying the integrity and authenticity of digital data blocks (EP ‘070). All defendants were based outside the UPC (two were domiciled in Ireland, which is not a UPC contracting member state), but there was a website via which infringing products were offered that was accessible in UPC member states.
Keex asserted that acts of infringement were taking place in France, that the resulting damage was global, and this gave the UPC jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b Recast Brussels Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels) over all territories designated under EP ‘070, including Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland.
The jurisdiction of the UPC to hear the claim insofar as it extended to infringements of EPs of non-UPC member states was challenged by the defendants and, in November 2025, the Paris LD upheld its jurisdiction to hear the infringement claims relating to the non-UPC territories.
UPC CoA’s decision
The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Paris LD and held that, where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of Brussels, the UPC may only hear claims concerning infringements in UPC member states, i.e. damage occurring within UPC territory. The Paris LD had incorrectly interpreted the Electrolux judgment as applying regardless of whether jurisdiction is established under Article 4 (domicile) or Article 7(2) (place where the damage occurred or may occur) of Brussels.
To the contrary, Electrolux only concerned jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels, and its reasoning cannot be extended in the manner applied by the Paris LD. Pursuant to previous CJEU caselaw1, where the court has jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 7(2) of Brussels, it only has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning damage occurring within its territory, which is the only link between the court seised and the subject matter of the dispute.
The UPC CoA also held that, in the case at hand, there was no jurisdiction under Article 71b(3) of Brussels. This provision provides that, where a common court, like the UPC, has jurisdiction over a defendant according to Article 7(2) of Brussels (i.e. infringement within the territory of jurisdiction of the court), that court may also exercise jurisdiction in respect of damage caused by that infringer outside of the EU, i.e. by infringing acts outside its territory of jurisdiction.
Translated to the UPC, this means that so far as the UPC as a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant for infringement of an EP in the UPC member states, it can claim jurisdiction for infringements of non-UPC member state patents by the same defendant. However, this only applies where the defendant also owns property located in a UPC and the infringement has a sufficient connection with the dispute (i.e. the infringement within the UPC territory).
In the case at hand, however, the UPC did not have to decide whether it had jurisdiction for the infringements of the non-UPC parts of the patent under Article 71(3) of Brussels. Rule 13(1)(i) of the UPC Rules of Procedure requires that the Statement of Claim must contain the facts and legal arguments necessary to explain the basis for the court’s jurisdiction. Keex had failed to do this, and this deficiency could not be remedied by exhibits submitted in response to the defendants' preliminary objections.
Referral to the CJEU on Article 8(1) Brussels and intermediaries
Dyson Technology v. Dreame International (Hongkong) and Eurep GmbH, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025, March 6, 2026
Background
Dyson markets a successful “Airwrap” hair styling device and owns EP 3 119 235 (EP ‘235) relating to the design of a styling attachment which facilitates hair curling and is used in the Airwrap. EP ‘235 is in force in all UPC member states and Spain.
Dreame International, based in China, (Dreame) manufactures and markets the “Dreame Airstyle” and “Dreame Pocket” (the Old Dreame Products), which include curling attachments allegedly infringing Dyson's patent. It also released modified and newer variants, the “Dreame Airstyle Pro” and “Dreame Pocket Neo” (the New Dreame Products) and operated country-specific websites for Germany and Spain. Eurep GmbH (Eurep), based in Germany, acts as Dreame's EU authorised representative for the alleged infringing products under relevant EU legislation.
Dyson lodged an application for provisional measures, claiming that both the OId and New Dreame Products infringed EP ‘235 and, in August 2025, the Hamburg Local Division (Hamburg LD) granted a preliminary injunction against Dreame and Eurep in respect of the Old Dreame Products, but not the New Dreame Products. The injunction covered the UPC territories and Spain.
Eurep was ordered to stop providing services for infringing EP ‘235 in both the UPC and Spain (an EU member state that is not part of the UPC). Because it served as the EU authorised representative for the Chinese manufacturer, it was an indispensable party to the alleged infringement so was considered to act as an “intermediary” against which an injunction could be granted. As a German based company, there was no dispute as to the jurisdiction of the UPC over Eurep according to Article 4 of Brussels. The UPC’s “long-arm” jurisdiction over UPC-domiciled entities extends beyond UPC states (BSH v. Electrolux).
The Hamburg LD also took an expansive view of Art 8(1) of Brussels and found that Eurep, the UPC-domiciled authorised representative for the alleged infringing products, could “anchor” claims against Dreame, the Chinese manufacturer and distributor in Spain, for infringements of EPs outside of the UPC territory, specifically in Spain.
Both parties appealed this decision.
UPC CoA’s decision
On the substantive infringement issues, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Dyson’s appeal and extended the preliminary injunction granted to cover all of Dreame’s products alleged by Dyson to infringe, including permitting the claim to be extended to new products which had been introduced to the market while the appeal was pending.
However, with respect to the scope of the relief, the UPC Court of Appeal found that the case raised several issues concerning the interpretation of EU law and sought clarification from the CJEU on the following key issues:
- Whether the UPC’s jurisdiction over Dreame, a non-EU-domiciled manufacturer, insofar as it extends to Spain, a non-UPC territory, may be derived from its jurisdiction over another defendant, Eurep, under Article 8(1) and Article 71b(2) of Brussels. The UPC CoA confirmed that CJEU case-law has clarified that Article 8(1) Brussels can be interpreted as covering the situation where two or more companies are each separately alleged to have committed an infringement of the same national part of a European Patent as this situation is capable of giving rise to “irreconcilable judgments” resulting from separate proceedings. However, in order for judgments to be regarded as at risk of being irreconcilable, the divergence must arise from the same situation of fact and law. The Court of Appeal did not think it was clear whether the position of an alleged infringer offering the infringing product and an alleged intermediary providing a service which makes infringement possible satisfied this requirement.
- If the answer to (1) is “no”, and jurisdiction for the substance of the matter lies with a third country, in this instance Spain, whether, under the second sentence of Article 71b(2) Brussels2, the UPC may grant provisional measures against a non-UPC based entity (Dreame) and extending to an EU state that is not party to the UPC (Spain) if that entity is offering the same products in all EU member states through websites that are identical apart from the language. Furthermore, is it relevant that the entity uses the services of Eurep, which is established within a UPC member state, to infringe a relevant patent.
- Whether the acts of an authorised representative (e.g. Eurep) are a sufficient basis for it to be considered an intermediary within the meaning of Art 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) and capable of being subject to a preliminary injunction based on Art 62 UPCA3. The Court of Appeal noted that existing CJEU caselaw on intermediaries applies to services enabling infringement4. However, it isn’t clear if mere legal compliance services fall within this scope.
As a result, although the UPC CoA proceeded to give a decision with respect to acts within the UPC by the Dreame companies, it stayed the appeal proceedings insofar as they concerned:
- Dreame and its acts in Spain
- the acts of the authorised representative, Eurep.
Key takeaways
The duo of decisions from the UPC CoA highlights that the scope and circumstances under which the UPC is able to exercise its “long-arm” jurisdiction still is a contentious issue, and the following points are worth noting:
i. There are limits to the UPC’s international jurisdiction:
- If the UPC is seised of an action based on it being the place where the harm occurs (or may occur), jurisdiction is limited to the UPC territory. Claimants cannot rely on Article 7(2) alone and infringing products being available on a website accessible in the UPC territory and outside to expand the court's territorial reach to infringements of non-UPC patents/infringements outside the UPC territory.
- Article 71b(3) Brussels can confer “ancillary” jurisdiction for infringements outside UPC (and even EU) territory when the court already has jurisdiction over the defendant regarding an infringement within the UPC territory, but there are specific additional conditions which must be fulfilled in order for it to apply.
ii. The UPC CoA’s decision to reject Keex’s attempts to rely on Article 71b(3) in response to the defendants’ preliminary objections highlights the importance of complying with the procedural requirements in respect of the contents of Statements of Claim and fully pleading the case (in all alternatives) up-front.
iii. The Dyson v. Dreame case is the first time the UPC CoA has made a referral to the CJEU. While the Court of Appeal has demonstrated that it can itself determine issues regarding the interpretation of the UPC Agreement, the UPC’s jurisdiction concerns wider EU law (primarily Brussels) and in these circumstances the UPC CoA has shown willingness to refer relevant questions to the CJEU, the ultimate arbiter on such issues.
iv. The CJEU's ruling will clarify whether an EU-based authorised representative (to which parallels may potentially be drawn in the pharmaceutical context to marketing authorisation holders) acts as an intermediary, which can: (i) be injuncted for making their services available which enable the product to be placed on the market; and (ii) act as an anchor defendant for the purpose of bringing claims for infringement of EPs by non-UPC based defendants outside of the UPC. This is an issue of significant importance in disputes involving non-EU manufacturers selling into EU markets.
Footnotes
1. Pez Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur (C-441/13) on copyright; Fiona Shevill (C-68/930) on defamation; and Article 126(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001 of June 14, 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark
2. Art 71b2 states “Application may be made to a common court for provisional, including protective, measures even if the courts of a third state have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter”.
3. Article 62 UPCA provides that PIs can be granted “against an intermediary whose services are used by the alleged infringer”.
4. Tommy Hilfiger v. Delta Center (C-494/14), Telekabel Wien v. Constantin Film (C-314/12).
