UPC long-arm jurisdiction is now settled at appeal level. On 2 June 2026, in Fujifilm v Kodak, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) held that it can hear a claim for infringement of the UK part of a European patent when the defendant is domiciled in a UPC state. It also set out when the Court must stay, condition or dismiss such claims. If your group has a subsidiary in a UPC country, it can be sued there over its European patents in several countries at once, including countries outside the UPC.
Key takeaways
- Jurisdiction depends on where the defendant is domiciled (Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation), not on where the alleged infringement took place.
- Article 34 of the UPC Agreement (UPCA) does not confine the Court to UPC territory, but it must apply the foreign law and principles such as comity.
- For designations in EU and Lugano Convention states, such as Spain or Switzerland, the UPC cannot rule on validity; for other states, such as the UK, it can assess validity between the parties.
- The UPC will not hear revocation actions against non-UPC designations.
- Fujifilm still lost on the merits and must compensate Kodak for enforcing the first-instance injunctions.
What did the Court of Appeal decide in Fujifilm v Kodak?
Fujifilm sued three German Kodak companies before the Mannheim Local Division over EP 3 511 174, which covers lithographic printing plate precursors, for Germany and the United Kingdom. The Local Division found infringement in Germany on 2 April 2025 and, on 18 July 2025, in the UK, granting injunctions for both countries. In its decision of 2 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_312/2025, 333/2025, 880/2025 and 882/2025), the Court of Appeal set both judgments aside. It upheld the patent in amended form but rejected the infringement claims: in Germany, because Kodak could rely on a right of prior use under German law; in the UK, because the German companies were not shown to be liable as joint tortfeasors under English law.
What matters is the jurisdiction framework, confirmed even though Fujifilm lost. As Bristows noted on 3 June 2026, the UK injunction fell on substantive grounds, not for lack of jurisdiction.
How far does UPC long-arm jurisdiction reach?
The Court of Appeal rejected Kodak’s argument that Article 34 UPCA limits the Court to UPC territory. Article 34 says that, as a rule, a decision covers every UPC state where the patent has effect; it says nothing to stop the Court ruling on other countries. Where a defendant is domiciled in a UPC state, the Brussels I bis Regulation prevents the Court from declining jurisdiction because a court outside the EU would be a more appropriate forum. The Court relied on the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) judgment in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux (C-339/22, 25 February 2025).
The UPC currently covers 18 EU Member States, according to the European Patent Office (EPO). Spain and Poland are not among them (European Commission). Even so, a Spanish group can be sued over its Spanish or British designations if the defendant is a subsidiary in Germany, France, Italy or Portugal.
Where are the limits?
The Court of Appeal distinguished between accepting jurisdiction and exercising it, and set out three situations:
| Situation | EU or Lugano designations (e.g. Spain, Poland, Switzerland) | Other designations (e.g. United Kingdom) |
|---|---|---|
| I. A revocation action is brought at the UPC | The UPC declares it lacks jurisdiction | The UPC declares it lacks jurisdiction |
| II. Infringement claim, and the patent is invalid in UPC territory | The patentee may withdraw. If not, the defendant gets time to sue for revocation nationally and the UPC usually stays the claim. If no action is filed, the patent is assumed valid. | The claim is dismissed unless there are specific reasons, such as different claims for that country |
| III. Infringement claim, and the patent is valid and infringed in UPC territory | The UPC may grant relief on condition that the national court does not revoke the patent, if there is a “reasonable, non-negligible possibility” it will be upheld. If it is revoked, the order falls away. | Same approach, applied on grounds of comity |
What this means for your business
- Map where your group entities are domiciled. Any subsidiary in a UPC state can be the defendant in a claim covering the UK, Spain, Switzerland or Türkiye.
- Review opt-outs. During the transitional period of Article 83 UPCA, a classic European patent opted out of the UPC stays outside its jurisdiction, for all designations.
- Prepare the national flank. If you are sued, revocation actions in Spain or the UK have to be filed within the time the UPC sets, with local counsel ready.
If your European portfolio spans UPC and non-UPC countries, our European patent and UPC strategy team can review designations, opt-outs and exposure as a single plan.
Where companies get this wrong
- Assuming non-UPC countries are safe. A Spanish or British designation can be litigated in Munich, Paris or Milan if the defendant lives in a UPC state.
- Enforcing too early. Fujifilm must compensate Kodak for any damage caused by enforcing the first-instance decisions; enforcing an injunction before appeal carries real exposure.
- Letting national deadlines run separately. Where the UPC gives time to file a national revocation action, missing it means the Court will treat the patent as valid.
Disputes of this kind need the UPC case, the national validity actions and the licensing strategy run by one team. Our IP enforcement and litigation team coordinates them with European patent attorneys and UPC representatives.
Frequently asked questions
Can the UPC rule on infringement of a UK patent?
Yes. In Fujifilm v Kodak the Court of Appeal confirmed that the UPC has jurisdiction over the UK designation of a European patent when the defendant is domiciled in a UPC state. It applies UK law to infringement and can assess validity between the parties, but it cannot revoke the UK patent with effect for everyone.
Does UPC long-arm jurisdiction cover Spain?
It can. Spain is not a UPC state, but if the defendant is domiciled in one, the UPC can decide on infringement of the Spanish designation. Because Spain is in the EU, the UPC cannot decide validity: the defendant may bring a revocation action in Spain, and the UPC will generally stay that part of the case.
Can I avoid long-arm claims by opting out?
For classic European patents, an opt-out filed during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA keeps the patent outside UPC jurisdiction, including for its non-UPC designations. It does not apply to unitary patents, and withdrawing an opt-out has consequences, so it should be reviewed patent by patent.
Can IP Global Guard handle a long-arm UPC dispute for my company?
Yes. We assess exposure, coordinate the UPC proceedings with European patent attorneys and UPC representatives, and run the parallel national actions in Spain, the UK or other countries through qualified local counsel. You keep one point of contact and one strategy for the whole portfolio.
How IP Global Guard can coordinate your UPC exposure
Fujifilm v Kodak shows that one UPC action can reach countries outside the UPC, and that the real battle shifts to validity and national law. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, coordinates patent portfolios and disputes across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa, with one strategy and one billing relationship.
Send us the list of your European patents and the countries where your group companies are based. We will map your exposure to UPC long-arm claims, review opt-outs and prepare the national flank. Talk to our patent team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on the date of publication.
Sources
- UPC Court of Appeal, Fujifilm v Kodak, UPC_CoA_312/2025 and others (2 June 2026)
- Bristows, Inquisitive Minds, rapid reaction to Fujifilm v Kodak (3 June 2026)
- Morgan Lewis, UPC Court of Appeal clarifies jurisdiction over non-UPC patents (8 June 2026)
- EPO, Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre, UPC member states (June 2026)
- European Commission, Unitary patent system
