[Europe] CJEU Grand Chamber Judgment Recognizing UPC Long-Arm Jurisdiction (February 25, 2025), C-339/22
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Europe
Topics: —
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-12-04 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Europe] CJEU Grand Chamber Judgment Recognizing UPC Long-Arm Jurisdiction (February 25, 2025), C-339/22
BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB
The judgment broadly recognized the authority of courts in the EU Member State where the defendant is domiciled, and of the UPC, to hear patent infringement occurring in other countries (including not only other EU Member States but also third countries) and to issue cross-border injunctions (long-arm jurisdiction).
Specifically, the Düsseldorf Local Division (Germany) recognized that the Unified Patent Court also has jurisdiction over infringement of the UK part of a European patent.
This judgment opened the way to pursuing, together in the courts of the defendant's country of domicile, not only infringement of the European patent part validated in that country, but also infringement based on European patent parts in other countries and on foreign patents.
The exclusive jurisdiction over “the validity of patents” under Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is limited to invalidity actions with effect against the world and does not extend to invalidity defenses asserted between the parties in infringement proceedings.
As a result, the court of the defendant's domicile does not lose jurisdiction over the infringement case even if an invalidity defense is raised concerning a foreign patent part, and can decide infringement in other countries and third countries and issue cross-border injunctions.
Nevertheless, courts in each patent's country of registration still have exclusive jurisdiction over validity, so defendants may bring separate invalidity actions in each country.
The infringement court, on the other hand, has the power to sever and stay infringement proceedings if there is a reasonable possibility that the patent will be invalidated in invalidity proceedings pending in another country.
Parallel disputes over infringement and validity in different countries make proceedings more complex and increase defendants' costs.
This judgment marks a departure from prior CJEU case law, which had been understood to allow a cross-border injunction to be blocked by raising an invalidity defense. It has become harder for an alleged infringer to escape the patentee's chosen forum merely by asserting invalidity.
⇒ Favorable to patentees.
For the UPC, the judgment confirmed and strengthened the trend toward recognizing long-arm jurisdiction over infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC contracting states (such as the UK and Turkey), as already demonstrated by the Düsseldorf Local Division's judgment.
At the same time, confirmation that the national courts of EU Member States have similarly broad jurisdiction has expanded patentees' opportunities for forum shopping between the national court of the defendant's domicile and the UPC, and judicial competition between the two is expected to intensify.
https://hasegawa-ip.com/ep-patent/upc-long-arm/#google_vignette
Translator’s notes (editorial)
SOURCE TITLE DISCREPANCY: The supplied metadata title ends C-339/2, while the body heading gives C-339/22. The English title follows the complete body heading; both original forms remain in the source fields. The broad statements concerning EU Member States, third countries, validity defenses, and UPC jurisdiction are translated as the author wrote them, not independently verified or silently narrowed.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments