UPC Milan Local Division

UPC Milan Local Division affirms universal jurisdiction for defendants domiciled in Italy – including for non-UPC designations “as if it were a national court”

In its order of 8 April 2025 in Dainese v Alpinestars (UPC_CFI_792/2024), the Milan Local Division dismissed a jurisdictional challenge raised under Rule 19 RoP by defendant Alpinestars S.p.A., reaffirming the UPC’s capacity to adjudicate infringement actions concerning national validations of European patents even outside the territory of the UPCA – where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State.

The dispute arises from an infringement action filed by Dainese S.p.A. against six defendants, including Alpinestars, which is domiciled in Italy. The claimant sought cross-border relief, including for infringement in Spain—a non-UPCA state.

Alpinestars objected to the UPC’s jurisdiction over the Spanish national designation of EP 4072364. Relying on the CJEU’s judgment in C-339/22 (25 February 2025), the Milan Local Division rejected this objection, holding that:

• Pursuant to Art. 71a of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (as amended), the UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” for the purposes of international jurisdiction.
• A court seized under Art. 4(1) of the Brussels I Recast has jurisdiction over infringement actions even when validity of the foreign designation is disputed, as long as the validity is not challenged by way of revocation proceedings.
• The UPC therefore retains long-arm jurisdiction over national validations of European patents in non-UPC states, such as Spain, when the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State – here, Italy.

The Milan Division confirmed that this interpretation is consistent with the objectives of the Brussels I Recast, the CJEU’s reasoning in C-339/22, and prior UPC case law (Fujifilm v Kodak, UPC_CFI_355/2023; UPC_CFI_702/2024).

In rejecting a further objection based on admissibility, the Milan Division emphasized – as previously held by the CoA (UPC_CoA_471/2023) – that the grounds for preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP are exhaustive. Arguments alleging abuse of process or manifest lack of legal foundation are not properly raised under this rule and must be addressed during the main proceedings.

Key takeaways:

• The UPC, when acting as a court of the defendant’s domicile under Art. 4(1) Brussels I Recast, has jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning EP validations in non-UPC states “as if it were a national court”.
• Art. 34 UPCA does not limit the territorial jurisdiction of the UPC when read in light of the Brussels I Recast framework and CJEU case law (confirmation of Local Division Düsseldorf, Decision dated 28 January.2025, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023).
• Rule 19.1 RoP allows only a closed list of preliminary objections; other procedural or substantive challenges must be brought at later stages.

To the decision To the Blog Overview