Clarification of international jurisdiction

Keeex SAS v Adobe, Open AI, Truepic and Others

UPC_CoA_922/2025; UPC_CoA_923/2025; UPC_CoA_924/2025; UPC_CoA_925/2025, order of 13 March 2026 ^[1]

The Court of Appeal held that where jurisdiction is founded on Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (place of harm) this cannot be used as basis to extend jurisdiction for infringement outside the UPCA territories.

Background

Keeex brought an infringement action in Paris LD against eight defendants including Adobe Inc., Open AI LP, Truepic Inc. and Joint Developments Foundation Projects LLC. All of the defendants were domiciled outside UPC territory: six in United States and two in Ireland.  

The asserted patent, EP 2,949,070 relates to a method for externally verifying the integrity and authenticity of data blocks technology. Relief was sought for infringement not only in territories covered by the UPCA but also for Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland.

The defendants filed preliminary objections challenging both the internal and international jurisdiction of the court. The Paris LD rejected the objections and held it had jurisdiction to hear the facts of the alleged infringements committed in Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland. The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal held a hearing by video conference.

Decision

Court of Appeal’s summary of the law

There is internal jurisdiction before the local division where the infringement “has occurred or may occur”, Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court of Appeal has already clarified that this should be interpreted in the same way as “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”, Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 ^[2]. In terms of a website, it is sufficient that it is accessible from the relevant territory. ^[3]

Turning to international jurisdiction, Chapter II ^[4] of Regulation 1215/2012 applies to defendants domiciled outside the EU in proceedings before the UPC, Art.71b(2). Where jurisdiction is established under Article 7(2), the CJEU has ruled that the court of the place where damage occurred or threatens to occur has jurisdiction only to hear cases concerning damage in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs, see C-441/13 and C-68/93. ^[5]

Art. 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012 provides an additional rule for defendants domiciled outside the EU. Where the UPC already has jurisdiction to hear a case of infringement within the EU, it can exercise this ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction over the same defendant in relation to damage outside the EU caused by the infringement. But this jurisdiction may only be established if the defendant has property in a UPC territory and the dispute has a sufficient connection with that territory.

R. 13.1(i) RoP together with paragraph 7 (last sentence) of the Preamble mean that the claimant must bring forward sufficient facts and submissions in its Statement of claim to establish internal and international jurisdiction of the court.

Application to this case

Internal jurisdiction arises from the availability in France of content integrity verification software made available free of charge on the Internet by the defendants.

As to international jurisdiction, the defendants did not contest jurisdiction for infringing acts allegedly committed within UPC territory, but did contest jurisdiction for acts outside that territory. The Court of Appeal held that the Paris LD erroneously took the view that the CJEU decision in BSH v Electrolux which concerned jurisdiction under Art. 4 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (place of domicile) applied equally to jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) (place of infringement). On the contrary where the court has jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 7(2) this only covers claims concerning damage within its territory, that being the only link between the court seised and the subject matter of the dispute.

The Court of Appeal further noted that the Statement of case had not provided details about assets within the UPC territory in support of any argument of jurisdiction under Art. 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012.

The Court also rejected a suggestion that national provisions of the French Civil Code could be applied.

The appeal was allowed. The CFI’s decision that it had jurisdiction to hear alleged infringement in Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland was set aside.

[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/182825

[2] CoA , Order of 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024,Aylo v. Dish, para 26; CoA, Order of 28 November 2025, UPC_CoA_317/2025, Barcov. Yealink, para 50 to 52.

[3] Aylo v Dish ibid., paras. 12 and 21.

[4] Articles 4 to 35 of Regulation 1215/2012.

[5] CJEU, 22 January 2015, Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW, C-441/13 (copyright); and 7 March 1995, Fiona Shevill, C-68/93 (defamation). Note also Article 126(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.

‍

‍