In an order dated March 13, 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled that the UPC lacks jurisdiction to hear the alleged infringement of patent EP 2 949 070 in Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Poland (third countries that are not members of the UPC).
Case Summary
- At the trial level, KeeeX sued Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, the Joint Development Foundation Projects, and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) before the Paris Local Division for infringement of patent EP 2 949 070 relating to a method for verifying the integrity of a block of digital data.
- The defendants raised preliminary objections regarding both the court’s internal and international lack of jurisdiction. These objections were rejected by the Paris order of November 27, 2025, which relied in particular on the CJEU’s BSH judgment to extend jurisdiction to certain non-member states of the UPC Agreement.
Legal Rules Applied on Appeal
- The UPC Court of Appeal notes that the jurisdiction of the UPC is determined by European Union Regulation 1215/2012 (and Regulation 542/2014).
- It distinguishes between two points:
- Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (place where the harmful event occurred) establishes jurisdiction solely for damage occurring within the territory of the court seized; and
- Article 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012, however, provides an additional rule of jurisdiction where defendants are domiciled outside the European Union. It allows, only incidentally, for the jurisdiction of a general court to be extended to cover damages suffered outside the EU, provided that the court already has jurisdiction over acts of infringement in a Member State connected to the dispute.
The Court’s Criticisms of the Plaintiff (KeeeX) and the First-Instance Decision
- The UPC Court of Appeal criticizes KeeeX for failing to sufficiently justify the UPC’s international jurisdiction. In particular, KeeeX stated in its complaint: “The acts of infringement take place notably in France. (…) It should be noted that the harm resulting from the acts of infringement is global and therefore covers all territories protected by European Patent EP 2 949 070 B1.” Furthermore, KeeeX included a list of the countries designated by the patent. Nothing is mentioned to prove the occurrence of the acts outside French territory, and no argument is provided to justify the international jurisdiction of the UPC.
- Thus, the Court finds the interpretation of the Paris Division to be erroneous, as it had applied the BSH judgment to extend its jurisdictional authority to other territories on the basis of Article 71b(3). The Court notes that, in this case, jurisdiction is strictly territorial. Indeed, it follows from the case law of the CJEU that when a court has jurisdiction as the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or is likely to occur, it has jurisdiction only to hear claims for damage caused within its territory, which is the sole link between the court seized and the subject matter of the dispute.
Formal judgment
In particular, the UPC Court of Appeal overturns the order of November 27, 2025, insofar as it dismissed the preliminary objections regarding international jurisdiction.
It states that the UPC lacks jurisdiction to rule on the alleged infringement of the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian, and Polish parties of patent EP 2 949 070, and dismisses all other claims.
The Court thus establishes a clear line: to extend the UPC’s jurisdiction beyond its territory via Article 71b(3), the claimant must specifically articulate and prove that the conditions are met in the case at hand as early as its opening brief (i.e., in particular, justify the provisions applicable to the other national parts of the patent and establish the existence of acts of infringement committed by the defendant companies within the UPC’s territory); otherwise, jurisdiction over third-party states is denied.