2024-09-03 - CoA - AYLO Billing v. DISH et al. - UPC_CoA_188/2024

1) Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur in that particular Contracting Member State. Where the damage is allegedly caused via the internet, the likelihood of such damage may arise from the possibility of obtaining products and/or using services from an internet site accessible within the territory of the Contracting Member State where the European patent has effect. 2) The identification of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur within the meaning of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, does not depend on criteria which do not appear in this provision and which are specific to the examination of the merits, such as the conditions for establishing an indirect infringement within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA. 3) The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements. 4) The list of preliminary objections of R. 19.1 RoP must be regarded as exhaustive. The application of R. 19 to 21 RoP therefore cannot be extended to other defences, such as abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation.

The Court of Appeal confirmed a decision to reject a preliminary objection based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction.