UPC long arm jurisdiction: The challenge of enforcement outside the UPC territory

On 30 January 2026, the Mannheim Local Division issued its enforcement order in Fujifilm v Kodak concerning the implementation of remedies ordered for the German part of EP3511174. Fujifilm sought penalty payments for continued non‑compliance. The court imposed significant penalties for past and ongoing failures in compliance.

Unsurprisingly, the decision has immediate effect within UPC Contracting Member States. This said, the court recognised that the decision will not be automatically recognised in non-UPC territories. The court explains that where no bilateral or multilateral treaty exists, a UPC decision is only enforceable through recognition by the competent national courts. The panel adds that this applies to all remedies, including injunctions and penalty payments.

The Mannheim LD distinguishes between the UPC’s long arm jurisdiction and the separate question of enforceability abroad, noting that the latter depends entirely on national rules of the state concerned. The court emphasises that this approach reflects the principles of territoriality and comity and expressly acknowledges the “current jurisdictional conflict” and the need for courts to respect each other’s territorial limits. 

Within the present case, the court clarifies that although enforcement of the UK injunction requires recognition by a UK court, the Mannheim LD may still impose penalties relating to a failure to provide information, where the defendant is domiciled in UPC territory. Because the infringing manufacturing took place in Germany, information concerning quantities produced for export, including exports to the UK, remains owed under the German enforcement order. The court rejects Kodak’s position that disclosure could be limited to German‑market deliveries and confirms that profits and quantities attributable to manufacturing in Germany must be provided.