UPC CoA: EU Law trumps UPC Rules of Procedure

In a recent decision handed down in UPC_CoA_420/2025 and its joined cases, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal addressed a critical divergence between its own procedural rules and European Union law regarding the establishment of international jurisdiction. The core of the dispute involved Rule 19.7 RoP, which stipulates that a defendant’s failure to lodge a preliminary objection within one month of service must be treated as a "submission to the jurisdiction" of the court. Despite NUC Korea missing this window and only contesting jurisdiction in its first substantive Statement of Defence, the Court of Appeal deemed that adherence to the standards of Article 26(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation took precedence over the formalistic deadline found in its own Rules of Procedure.

The Court emphasized that the phrase " a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction" under Article 26(1) of Brussels I bis regulation is an autonomous concept of EU law that requires a deliberate, active step by the defendant. Crucially, the Court ruled that merely logging into the UPC Case Management System to access the case file does not constitute a submission to jurisdiction, as it is a prerequisite for a party to even become aware of the case details. 

By allowing the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge to stand, the Court affirmed that the Brussels I bis Regulation—as superior EU law—prevails over the UPC's internal rules. This ensures that a defendant's right to contest international jurisdiction remains protected as long as the challenge is clearly articulated in their first defence, effectively neutralizing the "deemed submission" trap that Rule 19.7 RoP would otherwise create.