2024-04-11 - LD Paris - Icpillar v. Arm et al. - UPC_CFI_495/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_495/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- SVF Holdco v. ICPillar LLC
Kernaussage: In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside…
2024-04-11 - LD Paris - Icpillar
v.
Arm et al. - UPC_CFI_495/2023
In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the EU. Hence the only requirements to be met are: 1) the multiple defendants have a commercial relationship, 2) the action relates to the same alleged infringement.
The requirement of a “commercial relationship” implies a “certain quality and intensity”. However, to avoid multiple actions and the risk of irreconcilable decisions from separate proceedings, and to comply with the main principle of efficiency within the UPC, the interpretation of the link between the defendants should not be too narrow. The fact of belonging to the same group (legal entities) and having related commercial activities aimed at the same purpose (such as R&D, manufacturing, sale and distribution of the same products) is sufficient to be considered as “a commercial relationship” within the meaning of the Article 33(1)(b) UPCA.
landmark
The Paris Local Division dismissed preliminary objections filed by multiple Arm group defendants and SVF Holdco challenging its territorial jurisdiction. The order gives a foundational interpretation of Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA on multi-defendant actions: where at least one defendant is seated within the LD's Contracting Member State, Art. 33(1)(b) applies to all co-defendants, regardless of whether the others are in other CMS, in the EU, or outside the EU — Art. 33(1) para. 3 UPCA (third-country defendants) does not pre-empt 33(1)(b). The only two requirements are a 'commercial relationship' between the defendants and the 'same alleged infringement'. The Paris LD interprets 'commercial relationship' broadly to avoid multiple actions and irreconcilable decisions: membership in the same corporate group with related activities directed at the same products (R&D, manufacturing, sale, distribution) suffices. Past group membership combined with continuing liability for non-time-barred pre-Court acts is also sufficient to bring a former affiliate within 33(1)(b).
Stichwörter
Preliminary Objection, Multiple defendants, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA, Interpretation of the meaning of “a commercial relationship”.