Nixu FL IP Protection LLC vs INFOBLOX INC. et. al.
UPC_CFI_360/2026 (LD Hamburg), order of 8 June 20261
The order is significant because it draws an important line between the UPC’s broad jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Contracting Member States and the more demanding requirements for extending jurisdiction to a third-country defendant in respect of a non-UPC territory. The Hamburg LD accepted jurisdiction over the US defendant, Infoblox Inc., for Germany, France and Finland, but dismissed the action against it as inadmissible insofar as the claims concerned the UK part of the patent. The key point is that Article 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation cannot be used merely by relying on the UPC’s universal jurisdiction over German anchor defendants. Where a claimant seeks relief against a non-EU defendant for alleged infringement of a national part of a European patent in a non-UPC and non-EU country, such as the UK, the claimant must substantiate that the non-EU defendant together with an anchor defendant based within the jurisdiction of the local division jointly infringe the UK part of the patent.
The claimant alleged infringement by Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH and Nomios Germany GmbH in Germany, France, Finland and the United Kingdom.
Infoblox Inc. raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, challenging international jurisdiction over the claims against it, while jurisdiction over the German defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation was undisputed. The dispute concerned the UPC’s jurisdiction over the US defendant.
The claimant relied primarily on Article 8(1), arguing that the German defendants acted as anchor defendants because all parties allegedly infringed the same patent by distributing the same software. In response to the objection, the claimant also invoked Article 7(2), alleging that Infoblox Inc. operated a website enabling access to the relevant software.
Infoblox Inc. argued that the claimant had failed to establish the factual basis required under Article 8(1), in particular for the UK. It maintained that no acts by the German defendants had been alleged or proven in the UK.
The preliminary objection was partially successful. The LD upheld jurisdiction for Germany, France and Finland, but dismissed the claims against Infoblox Inc. concerning the UK part of the patent.
The LD first clarified the pleading standard under Rule 13.1(i) RoP whereby a claimant must set out sufficient facts to enable the court to assess jurisdiction, but need not mention the exact legal provision in the applicable regulation as it is the Court’s duty to apply the relevant law. Accordingly, the claimant was allowed to rely on Article 7(2) Brussels Ia Regulation at the preliminary objection stage, even though it had not been expressly invoked in the Statement of Claim.
However, Article 7(2) Brussels Ia Regulation did not support jurisdiction for the UK. As the LD emphasized, jurisdiction under this provision is limited to the place where the harmful event occurs, which, in conjunction with Article 71b Brussels Ia Regulation and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Adobe v Keeex2, is confined to the UPC territory. It therefore covered Germany, France and Finland, but not the UK.
The LD then turned to Article 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation. It recalled that Article 8(1) permits claims against multiple defendants to be heard together in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided that the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. By virtue of Article 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, this mechanism may be applied by the UPC also in relation to defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State, such as Infoblox Inc.
For Germany, France and Finland, the LD accepted that the German defendants could serve as anchor defendants. They were incorporated in Germany and therefore subject to the UPC’s jurisdiction under Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation. The court expressly emphasised that, for jurisdiction under Article 4(1), the jurisdiction is established by domicile, not by the location of the alleged acts. It therefore was not necessary, for jurisdictional purposes, to examine in detail whether the German defendants had committed infringing acts in France or Finland.
The close connection required under Article 8(1) was also found to be sufficiently pleaded for the UPC territories. According to the court, the claimant had alleged undisputed facts suggesting that the German defendants were active in the distribution of, or support for the distribution of, the accused embodiments within the UPC territory. The court therefore accepted that the German defendants generally could function as an anchor for the entire UPC territory with respect to the US defendant.
The decisive part of the order concerns the UK. The court accepted that the UPC’s jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in UPCA countries could, in principle, also cover acts in non-UPC and non-EU countries, referring to the Court of Appeal’s Kodak v. Fujifilm decision3. However, the court held that the necessary close connection under Article 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation was not established for the UK.
The LD drew a clear distinction between jurisdiction based on Article 4(1) and jurisdiction based on Article 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation. Under Article 4(1), it is not necessary to examine the plausibility of acts committed by the domiciled defendants, because the connection with the forum is created by their domicile. Under Article 8(1), however, where the claimant seeks to extend jurisdiction to a non-UPC national part of a European patent, the place and effect of the defendants´, i.e. Infoblox Inc. and at least one of the German anchor defendants alleged acts remain relevant. The claimant must therefore allege facts relating to the specific country for which relief is sought, here, the UK. The mere fact that the UPC has universal jurisdiction over two German defendants is not enough where the claim concerns acts in a non-UPC and non-EU country. In order to establish jurisdiction under Article 8(1), the claimant must substantiate that the parties allegedly infringe the same national patent jointly in the country in which the claimant seeks an injunction. It is not sufficient to allege that all defendants individually infringe different national parts of the same European patent by selling, marketing or deploying the same software systems. Independent actors acting in different countries, but not in the country for which relief is sought, do not create the type of close connection required to justify joint proceedings under Article 8(1).
Applying that standard, the LD held that the claimant had not asserted facts allowing the conclusion that Infoblox Inc. and at least one of the German anchor defendants jointly infringed the UK part of the patent.
The order is therefore a useful refinement of the UPC’s developing long-arm jurisdiction case law. It confirms that UPC-domiciled defendants may serve as anchor defendants for the entire UPC territory and that Article 8(1), as extended by Article 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, can bring a third-country defendant into UPC proceedings. At the same time, it prevents Article 8(1) from being used as a jurisdictional shortcut for non-UPC territories without a substantiated country-specific link. For claims concerning third-country national parts of European patents, the claimant must plead a joint infringement scenario involving the same national patent in that country.
The decision also sits consistently with the emerging UPC approach that international jurisdiction and the exercise of that jurisdiction must be kept analytically separate4. The court did not deny that the UPC may, in principle, have jurisdictional reach beyond the strict territorial scope of UPCA Member States. But it required the jurisdictional gateway relied upon for that extension to be properly satisfied. In this case, Article 7(2) was territorially limited to UPC territory, and Article 8(1) failed for the UK because no sufficiently close UK-specific anchor-defendant connection had been pleaded.
[1] https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183445
[2] UPC_CoA_922/2025, decision of 13 March 2026, available under https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/182825
[3] UPC_CoA_312/2025 UPC_CoA_333/2025 UPC_CoA_880/2025 UPC_CoA_882/2025, decision of 2 June 2026, available under https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183415
[4] Ibid.