CJEU Asked to Clarify UPC Jurisdiction and Liability of EU Authorised Representatives in Cross-Border Patent Infringement Case

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has submitted a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressing pivotal issues of international jurisdiction and liability at the intersection of patent law and EU product safety regulations. The referral stems from proceedings initiated before the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC concerning alleged patent infringement by a Chinese manufacturer and its German authorised representative.

The underlying patent, European Patent EP 3 119 235, relates to a portable hair care device. The contested products are hairdryers marketed through various European websites operated by the Chinese manufacturer. The German defendant acts solely as the EU authorised representative for product safety purposes and does not itself manufacture or distribute the products.

In an interim relief order, the Hamburg Local Division directed both defendants to cease and desist throughout the UPC territory and additionally ordered the Chinese manufacturer to cease and desist in Spain, a non-UPC member state. The defendants appealed, leading the Court of Appeal of the UPC (Cases UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) to suspend the injunction against the German authorised representative entirely and against the Chinese manufacturer insofar as it concerned Spain.

The Court of Appeal seized this opportunity to refer several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on fundamental EU law issues. The first concerns the extent of the UPC’s international jurisdiction, particularly whether it can cover acts of patent infringement occurring in EU Member States that have not acceded to the UPC system, such as Spain in this case.

The Court specifically asks whether the UPC’s jurisdiction can be extended to such non-UPC states based on the “anchor defendant” principle under Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which allows multiple defendants to be sued before a single court if claims are closely connected. It also queries whether the German authorised representative can serve as such an anchor defendant.

Secondly, the Court requests clarification on whether, in interim relief proceedings, the UPC may assume jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring outside the UPC territory but within the EU, especially when the contested products are offered via largely identical websites across the Union.

Thirdly, the Court inquires whether the involvement of an EU-based authorised representative by a non-EU manufacturer is a relevant connecting factor for establishing jurisdiction before the UPC.

The fourth and particularly sensitive question concerns liability: whether an authorised representative acting solely under the EU Product Safety Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/988) and the EU Market Surveillance Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1020)—without engaging in marketing or distribution—can be held liable under patent law and thus be subject to preliminary injunctions for patent infringement.