UK Court of Appeal Confirms Unified Patent Court’s Jurisdiction Over UK Patent Infringement Claims

Fujifilm initiated infringement proceedings against several German entities within the Kodak group, alleging violation of European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) upheld the patent in amended form and found infringement not only in Germany but also extending to the United Kingdom. This first-instance decision attracted significant attention as one of the earliest instances where the UPC granted injunctive relief with effect in a non-UPC state.

On 2 June 2026, the UK Court of Appeal issued a pivotal ruling (Case Nos. UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025) that overturned the infringement finding. Crucially, however, the Court confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement claims relating to the UK designation of the European patent. This affirmation significantly enhances the potential for cross-border patent enforcement before the UPC.

Central to the Court of Appeal’s decision was its interpretation of Article 34 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). Kodak contended that this provision restricts the UPC’s jurisdiction to the territories of Contracting Member States only. The Court expressly rejected this limitation, clarifying that Article 34 governs the territorial scope and effect of UPC decisions but does not delimit the Court’s international jurisdiction.

Instead, the Court held that jurisdiction must be determined under the Brussels Ia Regulation, which generally confers jurisdiction on courts where the defendant is domiciled. Since Kodak’s German entities are domiciled in a UPC Contracting Member State, the UPC may, in principle, hear infringement claims concerning national parts of a European patent outside the UPC territory. This interpretation aligns with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux), which addressed international jurisdiction at the intersection of patent law and product safety law.

The Court of Appeal’s approach goes beyond prior UPC decisions by rejecting the notion that the UPC is a regionally confined specialized court. Instead, it recognizes the UPC as a fully-fledged court of a community of Member States, obligated to apply European civil procedure jurisdictional rules equivalently to national courts.

Notably, the Court ruled that once jurisdiction is established, the UPC cannot decline to exercise it on the basis that a foreign court would be a more appropriate forum. The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens has no place within the Brussels Ia Regulation framework. Thus, where jurisdiction exists based on the defendant’s domicile, the UPC must exercise it.

Despite confirming jurisdiction, the Court acknowledged the complexity of adjudicating patent validity across multiple jurisdictions. Patent validity remains exclusively within the purview of national courts of third countries, creating potential conflicts in cross-border litigation.

To address this, the Court developed a nuanced procedural framework grounded in the principle of international comity. The UPC must exercise its international jurisdiction while respecting the sovereign rights of other states and applying the law governing the patent right in question.

For European patent designations outside the UPC territory, the Court held that validity decisions remain primarily the responsibility of competent national courts. However, following the CJEU’s reasoning in BSH v. Electrolux, the UPC should not be compelled to dismiss all cross-border infringement claims solely because a validity challenge exists.

The Court established a graduated procedural approach depending on the territories involved and the status of parallel validity proceedings. If an infringement action covers European patent designations in non-EU and non-Lugano Convention states, and the UPC finds the patent invalid within its territory, the Court should decline jurisdiction over those non-EU/Lugano territories as a matter of international comity. Claimants must be allowed to withdraw claims relating to those territories. Conversely, claims concerning EU and Lugano Convention states will generally be stayed pending the outcome of validity proceedings.

This mechanism assumes that the defendant has initiated invalidity proceedings against the relevant national designations. Absent such proceedings, the UPC proceeds on the presumption of patent validity and adjudicates infringement accordingly.

Where the UPC finds the patent valid and infringed both within the UPC territory and other concerned territories, it may render its decision conditional upon the patent surviving pending national invalidity proceedings. The UPC’s decision becomes final and enforceable only after relevant national invalidity actions are dismissed.

The Court of Appeal’s clarification of the UPC’s international jurisdiction beyond Contracting Member States—and even beyond the European Union—heralds a likely increase in cross-border patent litigation. The ability to bring a single action covering the UPC territory alongside commercially significant jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Spain presents a compelling enforcement tool for patent proprietors.

Such pan-European litigation can exert substantial pressure on defendants and bolster claimants’ negotiating positions in settlement discussions. Streamlined enforcement without fragmenting disputes into multiple national proceedings with potentially divergent outcomes was a foundational objective in creating the UPC.

Nonetheless, litigation spanning multiple non-UPC jurisdictions may become complex and potentially unwieldy. Challenges arise when issues must be resolved under different national legal systems or when patent validity is uncertain and may be assessed divergently across jurisdictions. These factors can cause delays and increase litigation costs. In some cases, more focused and streamlined actions may be strategically preferable, delivering quicker results while still supporting robust settlement leverage.

This ruling marks a significant development in the evolving landscape of European patent enforcement, underscoring the UPC’s expanding role in cross-border intellectual property litigation.