Case Law
Article 32: Competence of the Court

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central division - Seat, Order dated 17/11/2023, Fives ECL, SAS v. REEL GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_274/2023->https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/497])
Example of decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction to hear the action for damages or compensation based on the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application: “Of course, this makes it clear that the UPC should have the broadest possible competence. However, the desire for a broad competence cannot override the catalogue of competences set out in Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA. Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA provides in lit. a) expressly provides for an action relating to the infringement of a patent. This emphasises the UPC’s original competence to review a patent infringement.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s view, the aforementioned understanding does not create a regulatory gap for proceedings to determine the amount of damages from a final national infringement judgement. The plaintiff claims that no court has jurisdiction over the matter after the expiry of the transitional period pursuant to Art. 83 (3) UPCA. This is not correct. Since the application for the determination of damages following national patent infringement proceedings is not subject to any of the jurisdictional elements of Art. 32 para. 1 UPCA, the courts of the Member States have jurisdiction for this under Art. 32 para. 2 UPCA. This jurisdiction remains in place after the end of the transitional period due to the lack of jurisdiction of the UPC.”