Just out of reach of the long arm of the UPC: Court of Appeal Confirms Limits of Long-Arm Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") issued an important order on 13 March 2025 clarifying the territorial scope of the UPC's international jurisdiction. The decision - arising from an infringement action brought by French company Keeex SAS against a group of defendants including Adobe and OpenAI entities - confirms that the UPC's so-called "long-arm" jurisdiction does not extend to non-member states simply because infringing acts cause harm there. The order has significant practical implications for claimants seeking to use the UPC as a one-stop forum for multi-territorial patent enforcement.

Background and the BSH Hausgeräte framework

Under the Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012), a defendant may generally be sued either before the courts of their domicile or before the courts of the territory in which the harm caused by an infringing act occurs or is likely to occur. The February 2025 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux confirmed that a European court - whether a national court or the UPC as a common court - can hear infringement claims extending beyond its own territory, provided the defendant is domiciled within that court's territory. For the UPC, this means domicile in a UPC contracting member state.

That principle remains intact. Where a defendant is domiciled in a UPC member state, the BSH Hausgeräte framework permits the UPC to exercise jurisdiction over alleged infringements occurring outside the UPC territory. The present order does not disturb that conclusion.

The limits of Article 7(2): harm occurring in non-UPC states

What this order does establish, with clarity, is that Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 cannot serve as a jurisdictional foundation for claims concerning infringement in non-UPC member states where no defendant is domiciled within the UPC's territory. The Court of Appeal's reasoning at paragraph 51 is unambiguous: where the UPC's jurisdiction rests on Article 7(2) as the court of the place where damage occurred or may occur, its jurisdiction is confined to damage occurring within its own territory. That territorial nexus is the sole connecting factor that justifies the court's involvement — it cannot be stretched to reach harm suffered in Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway or Poland on the basis that infringing acts were also occurring in France.

Keeex's jurisdictional argument and its shortcomings

Keeex had sought to invoke Article 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012. That provision allows a common court, where it already has jurisdiction over infringing acts causing damage within the EU, to extend its reach to damage caused by the same infringement outside the Union, provided the defendant holds assets of sufficient value in a member state with an adequate connection to the dispute. Keeex pointed to the French subsidiaries of Adobe and OpenAI as satisfying that asset condition.

The Court of Appeal declined to resolve whether Article 71b(3) could in principle operate in the manner Keeex argued, leaving that question open. What it did find was that the Statement of Claim contained no adequate explanation of either the applicable jurisdictional basis or the asset condition required by that provision. As the Court noted at paragraph 49, Keeex's jurisdictional pleading amounted to little more than an assertion that the damage was global and that the patent designated the relevant countries. That fell well short of what Rule 13.1(i) of the Rules of Procedure requires. Attempts to supplement the position after the defendants' preliminary objections were filed could not remedy the deficiency.

What this means in practice

The order reinforces two important points for practitioners and patentees considering UPC enforcement strategy. First, the UPC's long-arm jurisdiction remains available and effective where the defendant is domiciled in a UPC member state - the BSH Hausgeräte principle stands, and the UPC's reach in those circumstances is real. Second, where defendants are domiciled outside the UPC's territory, claimants cannot rely on Article 7(2) alone to bring non-UPC jurisdictions within scope. Any attempt to invoke Article 71b(3) must be pleaded with sufficient factual and legal particularity from the outset of proceedings, with assets and their nexus to the dispute clearly identified in the Statement of Claim.

As the UPC's jurisprudence on international jurisdiction continues to develop, this decision is a useful reminder that procedural rigour matters as much as substantive strategy. Claimants who wish to use the UPC as a platform for broad multi-territorial enforcement should consider their jurisdictional pleading with care before proceedings are commenced.