Case Law
Article 31: International jurisdiction

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 21/03/2025, Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v. IMC Créations (Case/ Registry number : App_10014/2025, ORD_11997/2025)
Example of decision on the UPC’s extended jurisdiction over non-UPC states in cross-border patent infringement cases. : "According to Article 31 of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA), the international jurisdiction of the UPC is established in accordance with EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia) or, where applicable, on the basis of the Lugano Convention.
The principle of jurisdiction, in civil and commercial matters, in the Member States of the European Union, is according to Article 4 of the Brussels Regulation and Article 8(1) of the same text in the case of multiple defendants, that of the courts of the Member State of the domicile of the defendant or one of them. By way of exception, pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Regulation, ‘In proceedings concerned with the validity of patents, and irrespective of the domicile of the parties, [...] the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied [...], shall have exclusive jurisdiction, whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection.
[…] Pursuant to Article 71 bis of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Unified Patent Court is a court common to several Member States and is deemed to be a court of a Member State when it exercises its jurisdiction under the UPCA. The Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, applicable when the jurisdiction of a third State (non-member of the European Union) party to this convention (Swiss Confederation, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway and Republic of Iceland), including Switzerland, enacts the same principle of jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant’s domicile and the same exception in application of its articles 22(4) and 25, when the validity of the patent is at stake.
[...] The UPC, a common court, is deemed to be a court of a Member State of the European Union pursuant to Article 71a of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It is required to apply Union law, as interpreted by the decisions of the CJEU, in accordance with Article 20 of the UPCA.
[...] the preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Local Division of Paris of the JUB to rule on the alleged infringement of the national designations of patent EP 4 153 830 in force in the States where it has no unitary effect, and in particular its Spanish, Swiss and British designations, must be rejected’.
By reference to CJUE C-339/22 dated February 25, 2025, the Paris Local Division stated that : ‘In the present case, there is no reason to disregard or decide not to implement the solutions identified by the CJEU, without excluding patents registered in States other than those in which the UPCA is in force.’"

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 22/11/2024, "Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH" (Case/ Registry number: ACT_545551/2023, ORD_598506/2023)
Example of decision on FRAND ruling: "The jurisdiction of the local chamber of the Unified Patent Court in Mannheim for the infringement action and the nullity counterclaim arises from Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b no. 1 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2015, Art. 32(1)(a), (e) of the UPCA and Art. 33(1)(a) of the UPCA. According to the substantiated statement of claim, the defendants have also committed acts of infringement in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Defendants withdrew their objection to the jurisdiction – albeit under protest – in the oral proceedings after the bench pointed out the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, considering the court to be fundamentally incompetent and, on the other hand, nevertheless applying to the court deemed incompetent for the determination of a FRAND rate in the context of the antitrust dispute between the parties. The local chamber in Mannheim also has jurisdiction over the FRAND counterclaim."