A context of expanding UPC competences: “long arm jurisdiction”
Since it began operating, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has been engaged in a dynamic of asserting its jurisdiction, including beyond the strict territory of the States participating in enhanced cooperation. This trend follows on from several landmark decisions.
On the one hand, the decision of 28 January 2025 in the case Fujifilm v. Kodak (commented on here) illustrated a willingness to address acts of infringement committed outside the UPC territory, relying on an extensive approach to its judicial competence.
On the other hand, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particular the judgment BSH v. Electrolux (commented on here), helped to legitimise a form of “long arm jurisdiction” in relation to European patents, by accepting, under certain conditions, that a court may hear infringement facts outside its territory of competence.
In this context, the UPC appears able to extend its influence beyond its geographical perimeter, notably where the same European patent has effect in several States, including outside the territories within the UPC’s competence.
Presentation of the case IMC Créations v. Mul-T-Lock
The case that was the subject of a decision of 16 January 2026 by the UPC Paris local division pits IMC Créations, a French company specialising in anti-theft systems for light commercial vehicles, against Mul-T-Lock France, a subsidiary of an international group specialising in high-security locking solutions.
IMC Créations holds European patent EP 4 153 830 B1, validated as a unitary patent, relating to a locking system for light commercial vehicles. It alleges that Mul-T-Lock is marketing a product (MVP 1000) which, in its view, reproduces the features set out in claim 1 of the patent, notably in France but also in Switzerland.
A central point of the dispute lies in the claimant’s strategy:
• To have infringement found on the basis of the unitary patent (UPC territory).
• To have infringement found on the basis of the Swiss part of the European patent (territory outside the UPC).
A decision structured around the limitation of the patent and the duality of protections
During the proceedings, IMC Créations carried out an unconditional limitation of certain claims of the unitary patent. The UPC first confirms an essential principle: the unitary patent as amended produces its limited effects as from the grant of the European patent. This limitation makes it possible to confirm the validity of the patent in the face of invalidity attacks while serving as the basis for the infringement analysis in the States covered by unitary effect.
The decision draws a fundamental distinction:
• In the Contracting Member States: infringement is assessed in light of the patent as limited.
• In Switzerland: infringement must be assessed in light of the patent as granted.
This duality results from the fact that the limitation of the unitary patent does not automatically affect the national parts of the European patent outside the UPC.
Referring to the CJEU judgment in the BSH-Electrolux case cited above, the Paris local division considers itself competent to hear infringement actions relating to a patent granted by an EU Member State or a State signatory to the Lugano Convention, unless there is a reasonable risk of revocation of the patent at national level. In that case, the UPC must stay the proceedings until the national court has ruled on the validity of the title.
In the present case, infringement in respect of the Swiss part of the European patent relates to the claims as granted, since only the claims of the unitary patent were limited unconditionally at IMC’s request. Consequently, the Paris local division held that the amendments made to the claims of the unitary patent raised serious doubts as to the validity of the Swiss patent as granted, which constituted a reasonable risk of revocation of the latter. It was for IMC to take the necessary steps to amend the Swiss part of the European patent.
The Paris local division therefore declared itself unable to assess the materiality of the alleged infringement of the Swiss part of the European patent. Automatically recognising in Switzerland a decision based on a modified version of the patent would amount to indirectly applying a limitation that is not effective there in Switzerland, and would therefore undermine the sovereignty of the Swiss courts.
The UPC thus refuses any extrapolation, marking a clear boundary to the theory of “long arm jurisdiction”.
Strategic vigilance required
This decision is an important reminder of the limits of the unitary patent system. Despite case-law developments favourable to expanded jurisdiction, the UPC:
• Can rule effectively only on a range of titles whose scope of protection is identical.
• Encounters obstacles to the UPC’s legitimacy as soon as the patent has different effects depending on the States.
For patent proprietors, particular vigilance is required. Any limitation of the patent may lead to a divergence in the scope of protection between the territories in which the European patent has effect, and that divergence may prevent recognition or enforcement of a UPC decision for national parts of the European patent outside the UPC.
The litigation strategy must therefore incorporate, from the outset, the question of the territorial consistency of the protection, failing which the effects of a decision may be significantly limited outside the UPC territory.