IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock
UPC Jurisdiction, Swiss Infringement and the Limits of Cross-Border Patent Litigation
The relationship between the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and patent rights extending beyond the territory of the UPC is likely to become an increasingly important issue in European patent litigation. While much of the debate surrounding the UPC has focused on its territorial scope, recent developments suggest that the more interesting questions may concern the limits of its international jurisdiction.
The decision of the Paris Local Division in IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock of 16 January 2026 provides an opportunity to examine these issues in practice. The judgment addresses a jurisdictional question that is likely to arise with increasing frequency in future litigation: whether, and under what conditions, the UPC may exercise jurisdiction over infringement claims relating to national designations of a European patent outside the UPC territory. In doing so, the decision represents a practical application within the UPC system of some of the principles articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux (and their interaction with the Brussels Ia Regulation) to a claim concerning a Swiss designation of a European patent.
Procedural background
IMC Créations, a French company, brought infringement proceedings before the Paris Local Division based on EP4153830, which had obtained unitary effect and had also been maintained in force in Switzerland, Spain and the United Kingdom. The action was initially brought against both Mul-T-Lock France and Mul-T-Lock Switzerland. However, the action against the Swiss entity was subsequently withdrawn and the proceedings continued solely against Mul-T-Lock France, a company domiciled in France.
During the UPC proceedings, the patent proprietor limited the claims of the Unitary Patent in response to an inventive-step challenge. The Swiss designation, however, remained in the form originally granted. As a result, two different versions of the same European patent coexisted: a limited claim set applicable to the Unitary Patent and the granted claim set applicable to Switzerland.
This divergence ultimately became one of the central issues of the case. While infringement within the unitary territory had to be assessed based on the amended claims, the Swiss infringement allegations necessarily remained tied to the broader claims as granted. The Court expressly recognized this distinction.
The jurisdictional framework
The starting point of the Court’s analysis was Article 31 UPCA, pursuant to which the international jurisdiction of the UPC is determined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia) and, where applicable, other relevant instruments governing jurisdiction and enforcement.
In the present case, jurisdiction derived from the domicile of the defendant. Under Article 4(1) Brussels Ia, jurisdiction generally lies with the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled. Since the sole remaining defendant (Mul-T-Lock France) was domiciled in France, the French courts would normally have jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 71b Brussels Ia, the UPC, as a court common to participating Member States, may exercise that jurisdiction under the same conditions.
Therefore, the jurisdictional basis for the UPC competence to hear infringement was the defendant’s domicile in France. The Swiss designation formed part of the bundle of national rights derived from the same European patent and relied upon by the claimant.
BSH v. Electrolux and its relevance to the case
The importance of IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock can only be fully understood in light of the Grand Chamber judgment of the CJEU in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux.
In BSH, the claimant sued Electrolux before the Swedish courts for infringement of several national parts of a European patent, including patents validated in EU Member States and in Türkiye. Electrolux argued that the foreign patent rights were invalid and that the Swedish courts therefore lacked jurisdiction.
The CJEU established three principles that are particularly relevant here.
First, Article 4(1) Brussels Ia remains the primary jurisdictional rule: jurisdiction generally lies with the courts of the defendant’s domicile, even where the infringement action concerns foreign patent rights.
Secondly, Article 24(4) Brussels Ia, which grants exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity to the courts of the State for which the patent was granted or validated, must be interpreted strictly. The mere fact that invalidity is raised as a defense by the defendant does not transform an infringement action into proceedings principally concerned with the validity of a patent.
Thirdly, a court seized under Article 4(1) Brussels Ia retains jurisdiction over the infringement claim even where patent validity is challenged, whereas exclusive jurisdiction to rule on validity remains with the courts of the State for which the patent was granted or validated pursuant to Article 24(4) Brussels Ia. The CJEU further clarified that Article 24(4) does not extend to courts of third States and therefore does not prevent a court having jurisdiction under Article 4(1) from hearing infringement claims relating to patents validated outside the European Union, including in Türkiye.
These principles provided the jurisdictional framework subsequently applied by the Paris Local Division.
Why the UPC accepted jurisdiction over the Swiss infringement claim?
Against that background, the Court had little difficulty concluding that it possessed jurisdiction in principle to hear the Swiss infringement claim.
Relying on Article 31 UPCA, Article 4(1) and Article 71b Brussels Ia, and on the distinction drawn in BSH between jurisdiction over infringement and jurisdiction over validity, the Court held that it had jurisdiction in principle to hear the claim concerning the Swiss designation. The decisive factor was the domicile in France of Mul-T-Lock France, the sole defendant remaining in the proceedings.
Accordingly, the decision confirms that the UPC may, under certain circumstances, exercise jurisdiction over infringement claims concerning patent rights effective outside the UPC territory, including designations valid in Switzerland.
Why the UPC nevertheless declined to decide Swiss infringement?
One of the most interesting aspects of the judgment is that, having accepted jurisdiction, the Court ultimately declined to rule on the Swiss infringement allegations. This outcome resulted from the Court’s assessment of the unresolved validity issues affecting the Swiss designation, rather than from any lack of jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the patent proprietor had chosen to limit the Unitary Patent during the proceedings in order to overcome the inventive-step attack. The Swiss designation, however, remained in its broader, granted form. In the Court’s view, that asymmetry created a “significant reasonable risk” that the Swiss designation could subsequently be found invalid by the Swiss courts.
Consistently with the legal principles indicated above, the Court considered that it retained jurisdiction over infringement. However, it also recognized that it had no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Swiss designation with effect in Switzerland. The validity issue remained reserved to the Swiss courts.
The Paris Local Division further held that, in case of a reasonable and no-negligible risk of invalidity, infringement proceedings should be kept pending a determination by the competent national court. Yet, no validity action was pending in Switzerland. As the parties confirmed at the hearing, no invalidity proceedings were pending in Switzerland. The Court therefore had no Swiss validity determination to consider, nor any pending national proceedings on which to base a stay.
In those circumstances, the Paris Local Division concluded that it was unable to assess the materiality of the alleged infringement of the Swiss designation and dismissed all claims based on the Swiss designation of the patent.
In summary, the Paris Local Division determined in the decision that where an alleged infringer of a European patent is based in the EU, UPC courts are competent to decide on the question of infringement for all parts of a European patent – including the parts of that European patent that apply in EU countries that are not participants in the UPC system, in countries that are members of the Lugano Convention, as well in so-called third countries.
Conclusion
The IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock decision confirms that, where jurisdiction is anchored in the domicile of a defendant in a participating Member State, the UPC may, under Article 31 UPCA and the Brussels Ia framework, exercise jurisdiction over infringement claims concerning patent designations outside the UPC territory. The decision also illustrates the practical limits that unresolved validity issues may impose on the Court’s ability to decide such claims on their merits.
The case is therefore best understood as an UPC application of the jurisdictional principles articulated by the CJEU in BSH v. Electrolux, combined with the Paris Local Division’s own approach to the procedural consequences of a serious unresolved validity risk affecting a foreign designation.
As a first-instance decision, the judgment does not settle the issue definitively. Although it appears consistent with observations previously made by the Paris Local Division, it may be contrasted with decisions from other UPC divisions in which relief has been granted in respect of non-UPC patent designations notwithstanding amendments made to the patent during the UPC proceedings. Further guidance from the Court of Appeal would therefore be welcome.
Sources
- UPC Paris Local Division, IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock, Decision of 16 January 2026, UPC_CFI_702/2024 and UPC_CFI_369/2025.
- CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB, Case C‑339/22, Judgment of 25 February 2025.
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), Article 31.
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation), in particular Articles 4(1), 24(4) and 71b.
- Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano Convention, 2007).
