The UPC has jurisdiction (see “Jurisdiction of the UPC”): one still has to knock on the right door. Article 33 of the Agreement allocates actions between the local divisions, the regional divisions and the central division; this is an internal matter for the Court, not governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation (UPC, Court of Appeal, 28 Nov. 2025, Yealink v. Barco, UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025, headnote).

Infringement: the local and regional divisions

Principle

Actions for infringement, for provisional measures, for damages in respect of provisional protection and relating to prior use are brought, at the claimant’s choice (A33(1) UPCA):

  • before the local division of the State where the infringement has occurred or may occur, or the regional division in which that State participates;
  • before the local division of the State where the defendant (or one of the defendants) has its residence or place of business, or the corresponding regional division.

An action may be brought against several defendants only where they have a commercial relationship and the action relates to the same alleged infringement (A33(1) UPCA, first subparagraph).

The two criteria are not ranked, and there is no need to find, for each defendant, a connection with the territory of the division seised; as regards the place of infringement, an offer or the possibility of obtaining the products on a website accessible in the State of the division is sufficient. The judge confines itself to a summary examination of the allegations and the evidence, without anticipating the merits, and a division lacking competence refers the application to the competent division indicated by the claimant, including in matters of provisional measures (UPC, Court of Appeal, 28 Nov. 2025, Yealink v. Barco, UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025, headnotes 1 to 6).

Defendant established outside the Contracting Member States

If the defendant has neither residence nor place of business in a Contracting Member State, the action is brought before the division of the place of infringement or before the central division (A33(1) UPCA, third subparagraph).

No local or regional division

If the State concerned has no local division and does not participate in any regional division (Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania), the action is brought before the central division (A33(1) UPCA, last subparagraph).

Agreement between the parties

The parties may always agree to bring their dispute before the division of their choice, including the central division (A33(7) UPCA).

Revocation and non-infringement: the central division

Principle

Actions for revocation and for declarations of non-infringement are brought before the central division (A33(4) UPCA, first sentence).

However, if an infringement action between the same parties relating to the same patent has already been brought before a local or regional division, such actions may only be brought before that same division (A33(4) UPCA, second sentence).

“The same parties”

The concept is construed strictly, each company in a group having its own legal personality: the revocation action of an Italian subsidiary remains before the central division even if its Indian parent company and a German subsidiary are already being sued for infringement before the Munich Local Division (UPC, Paris Central Division, 13 Nov. 2023, Meril Italy v. Edwards, UPC_CFI_255/2023, points 34 to 46).

The Court of Appeal has confirmed this: two companies are “the same party” only if their interests are so identical that a decision given against one would have the force of res judicata as against the other, as for lis pendens within the meaning of Article 29 of the Brussels I bis Regulation; the resulting fragmentation can be remedied by referring the counterclaims to the central division (UPC, Court of Appeal, 25 Nov. 2025, Meril v. Edwards, UPC_CoA_464/2024 and joined cases, headnote 1 and points 28 to 31).

Chronological order

What counts is chronological order, down to the minute: on 1 June 2023, with the Registry’s electronic system (CMS) down, the revocation action filed on paper at the Luxembourg Registry at 11:26 a.m. preceded the infringement action filed at the Munich sub-registry at 11:45 a.m., and the central division retained competence (UPC, Munich Central Division, 24 Aug. 2023, Sanofi v. Amgen, UPC_CFI_1/2023, points 4.6 and 4.7). Nineteen minutes ahead: the UPC’s first day came down to the stopwatch.

Infringement action after a revocation action

If a revocation action is pending before the central division, the proprietor may bring an infringement action before any division competent under Article 33(1), or before the central division; the local or regional division seised then has the options of Article 33(3) (A33(5) UPCA and R75 RoP UPC).

Infringement action after an action for a declaration of non-infringement

An action for a declaration of non-infringement pending before the central division is stayed if an infringement action between the same parties (or brought by the exclusive licensee) relating to the same patent is brought before a local or regional division within three months of the date on which the non-infringement action was started (A33(6) UPCA). After that period, there is no automatic stay: the presiding judges of the divisions concerned consult each other on the further conduct of the proceedings (R76.3 RoP UPC).

Actions against the EPO

Actions against decisions of the EPO relating to the unitary patent fall to the central division (A33(9) UPCA).

The counterclaim for revocation: “bifurcation”

The defendant to an infringement action usually files a counterclaim for revocation. After hearing the parties, the local or regional division may then (A33(3) UPCA):

  • proceed with both the action and the counterclaim, requesting the allocation of a technically qualified judge (point (a));
  • refer the counterclaim to the central division, and stay the infringement action or proceed with it (point (b): German-style “bifurcation”);
  • with the agreement of the parties, refer the whole case to the central division (point (c)).

How this option works in practice (timing of the decision, mandatory stay where invalidity is highly likely, accelerated proceedings before the central division) is explained in “Counterclaim for revocation and amendment of the patent”.

Lis pendens

If an infringement action (or an action under Article 32(1)(c), (f), (g) or (h)) is pending before a division, none of those actions may be brought between the same parties on the same patent before any other division; the division seised second declares the action inadmissible (A33(2) UPCA, first and third sentences).

Widespread infringement before a regional division

If the action is pending before a regional division and the infringement has occurred in the territories of three or more regional divisions, the regional division refers the case, at the defendant’s request, to the central division (A33(2) UPCA, second sentence, and R19.4 RoP UPC).

It is rather odd that this provision covers only regional divisions and not local ones. All the more so since there is to date only one regional division (the Nordic-Baltic division): the “three regional divisions” condition therefore remains, for now, a purely academic hypothesis.

Paris, Munich or Milan: allocation within the central division

Where the central division is competent, cases are distributed between its seat and its sections according to the International Patent Classification (IPC) (A7(2) UPCA, Annex II, as amended by the decision of the Administrative Committee of 26 June 2023):

Seat or section IPC sections
Paris (seat) B (performing operations, transporting), D (textiles, paper), E (fixed constructions), G (physics), H (electricity), and all SPCs
Munich C (chemistry, metallurgy), except SPCs; F (mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, weapons, blasting)
Milan A (human necessities), except SPCs

Where the patent has several classifications, or the action concerns several patents with no majority in a single section, the case is assigned according to the first classification of the patent (or of the first patent cited), the presiding judge of the panel being able to request a reassignment (R17.3 RoP UPC).

Summary

As Napoleon Bonaparte said: “A good sketch is better than a long speech.”

Who said it was simple? (The sketch dates from 2020: London still appears in it, since replaced by Milan.)

No… this chart is not sponsored by ibuprofen…