UPC Court of Appeal Clarifies Long-Arm Jurisdiction – Fujifilm v Kodak (2 June 2026)

1. Introduction

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) delivered a landmark decision on 2 June 2026 in Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al.), addressing both substantive patent infringement issues and, more significantly, the scope of the UPC’s international or “long-arm” jurisdiction. This ruling provides the most comprehensive guidance to date on whether—and how—the UPC may adjudicate disputes relating to national designations of European patents in territories outside the UPC, such as the United Kingdom.

2. Outcome of the Appeal

At the level of substantive outcome, the Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment of the Mannheim Local Division, which had previously found infringement and granted injunctive relief in both Germany and the UK. The appellate court held that Kodak did not infringe Fujifilm’s patent and allowed Kodak to rely, inter alia, on a defence of prior use under German law. The injunctions were therefore set aside, although the patent itself was upheld as valid. This outcome illustrates a key feature of UPC litigation: even where the Court accepts jurisdiction over a claim with cross-border dimensions, success ultimately depends on establishing infringement and liability under the applicable substantive law.

3. Article 34 UPCA and the Scope of UPC Jurisdiction

Notwithstanding the reversal on the merits, the decision’s principal significance lies in its treatment of international jurisdiction under the UPC framework. The Court firmly rejected the argument that Article 34 of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) limits the Court’s jurisdiction to the territory of participating Member States. Instead, it held that Article 34 merely defines the territorial scope of UPC decisions as a default rule, but does not restrict the Court’s competence to hear disputes involving non-UPC territories where jurisdiction is otherwise established. This interpretation positions the UPC as a court capable of exercising jurisdiction in a manner comparable to national courts applying EU private international law rules.

4. The Jurisdictional Anchor: Brussels I bis Regulation

Central to the Court’s reasoning is the interaction between the UPCA and the Brussels I bis Regulation. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction may be grounded in Article 4 of Brussels I bis, which provides that defendants should generally be sued in the courts of their domicile. In Fujifilm v Kodak, the presence of Kodak entities in Germany constituted a sufficient jurisdictional anchor, allowing the UPC to hear claims relating not only to German patent rights but also to the UK designation of the same European patent. This approach is consistent with established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Owusu v Jackson and BSH v Electrolux, which precludes EU courts from declining jurisdiction on the ground that a non-EU forum might be more appropriate.

5. Accepting vs Exercising Jurisdiction

A central conceptual contribution of the decision is the distinction between “accepting jurisdiction” and “exercising jurisdiction.” While jurisdiction may be readily established under Brussels I bis, its exercise must be tempered by considerations of international comity and procedural fairness. This distinction enables the UPC to adopt an expansive approach to jurisdiction while simultaneously imposing limits on how that jurisdiction is used in practice, particularly in relation to foreign patent rights.

6. A Structured Framework for Long-Arm Claims

To operationalise this distinction, the Court articulated a structured framework for handling cases involving extra-territorial patent designations. First, the UPC cannot entertain standalone revocation actions concerning non-UPC patent designations; such matters remain within the exclusive competence of national courts. Second, in infringement proceedings involving foreign designations where validity is contested, the Court should adopt a flexible case-management approach. This may include inviting the patentee to withdraw extra-territorial claims, allowing the defendant to initiate revocation proceedings before national courts, or staying the UPC proceedings pending those outcomes. Third, where the patent is found valid and infringed within the UPC territory, the Court may proceed to grant relief extending to non-UPC territories. However, such relief is typically made conditional upon the patent being upheld by the competent national courts. Should those courts subsequently invalidate the patent, the UPC’s decision will cease to have effect. This conditional relief mechanism reflects a pragmatic attempt to reconcile effective enforcement with respect for national sovereignty over patent validity.

7. Joint Tortfeasorship and Foreign Law

The Court further clarified that the UPC’s jurisdiction extends to claims of joint tortfeasorship, meaning that liability may arise even where a defendant does not directly commit infringing acts. However, such liability must still be established under the applicable national law governing the alleged infringement. In the present case, Fujifilm’s UK infringement claim failed not because of jurisdictional limitations, but due to insufficient evidence under UK legal standards, particularly concerning attribution of infringing conduct and the requirements for joint liability.

8. Implications for Patent Litigation Strategy

From a policy and practice perspective, the decision significantly enhances the strategic importance of the UPC as a forum for multinational patent litigation. It confirms that, under certain conditions, the Court may adjudicate disputes with effects extending beyond the UPC’s formal territorial boundaries, including major markets such as the UK, Spain, and Switzerland. At the same time, the Court has imposed meaningful safeguards to prevent overreach. National courts retain ultimate authority over the validity of patents within their respective jurisdictions, and litigants must carefully navigate the procedural mechanisms outlined by the Court.

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, Fujifilm v Kodak represents a foundational judgment in the evolution of UPC jurisprudence. It establishes that the UPC possesses potentially far-reaching international jurisdiction, grounded in EU procedural law, while simultaneously delineating the limits of its exercise through principles of comity and procedural balance. For practitioners, the decision underscores both the opportunities presented by the UPC as a centralised forum for cross-border patent disputes and the continuing importance of national legal systems in determining substantive outcomes. Court of Appeal case IDs: UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main takeaway from the Fujifilm v Kodak decision?

The key takeaway is that the UPC can exercise jurisdiction beyond its own territory (so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”), including over patents validated in non-UPC countries such as the UK. However, the Court also clarified that exercising this jurisdiction is subject to limits, safeguards, and respect for national courts.

What is “long-arm jurisdiction” in the UPC context?

“Long-arm jurisdiction” refers to the ability of the UPC to hear and decide patent disputes relating to countries outside the UPC system, such as the UK, Spain, or Switzerland, provided there is a valid jurisdictional basis (e.g. a defendant domiciled in a UPC Member State).

On what legal basis can the UPC hear cases involving non-UPC countries?

The Court relied primarily on: Article 4 Brussels I bis Regulation (defendant’s domicile), and The interpretation of Article 34 UPCA, which does not limit jurisdiction territorially. This means that if a defendant is based in a UPC country, the UPC may hear claims relating to non-UPC designations of a European patent.

Can the UPC invalidate (revoke) patents in non-UPC countries?

No. The Court made clear that the UPC cannot decide standalone revocation actions for patents in non-UPC jurisdictions. That remains the role of the relevant national courts.