2026-06-08 - LD Hamburg - Nixu FL IP Protection v. Infoblox et al. - UPC-CFI-0000360/2026

ENGLISH: 1. Rule 13.1(i) RoP requires that a claimant provides the relevant facts on which the Court can assess its jurisdiction, without necessarily mentioning the exact legal provision in the applicable regulation, as it is the Court’s duty to apply the relevant law, without any necessity that a party is citing the (correct) law provision. 2. As the UPC is a Court with a territory encompassing all Contracting Member States, Defendants who are sued in their universal place of jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels-Ia-Regulation can function as an anchor for the entire territory of the UPC member states for a Defendant registered in a third country, Art. 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation. 3. However, the place and effect of infringing acts by Defendant registered in a UPCA Member State are relevant to establish jurisdiction under Art. 8 (1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, when it comes to invoke the UPC’S jurisdiction over a national part of a European Patent in a country that is not a member of the UPCA (here the UK). This deviates from the legal situation under Art. 4 Brussels- Ia-Regulation. Only for the jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels-Ia-Regulation it is not necessary to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by these Defendants, because then the connection with the UPC territory is established by the domicile and not the location where the acts of the defendant occurred.

The Hamburg Local Division (judge-rapporteur Schilling), ruling on a R. 19 RoP preliminary objection by US-domiciled Defendant 1) (Infoblox Inc.), partially accepted the objection and dismissed the infringement action against that defendant for lack of international jurisdiction insofar as it concerned the UK national part of EP 2 005 696. The Court held that the German-domiciled co-defendants (sued in their universal forum under Art. 4(1) Brussels Ia) can anchor jurisdiction over the third-country defendant under Art. 8(1) in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia, but only for the UPCA territories (Germany, France, Finland). It drew a sharp distinction: for Art. 4 Brussels Ia universal jurisdiction the plausibility of the anchor defendants' acts need not be examined because the connection flows from domicile, whereas to extend Art. 8(1) jurisdiction to a national part in a non-UPCA country (the UK) the claimant must substantiate that the defendants jointly infringe that specific national part there. Art. 7(2) Brussels Ia (place of damage) likewise reached only the UPCA territories, being limited under Art. 71b(1) to the UPC's own territory (CJEU Pez Hejduk). As no facts of joint infringement in the UK were pleaded, the close connection required by Art. 8(1) was absent for the UK and the claim there failed.