Adobe Inc, OpenAI LP & Others v KeeeX SAS, UPC Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026, Appeal Nos UPC_CoA_922-925/2025
The UPC Court of Appeal has overturned the Paris Local Division’s (“LD”) assertion of jurisdiction for alleged infringements outside the territory of the UPC’s Member States, clarifying some limits of the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction.
The decision provides practical guidance on adducing evidence to justify the domestic and international jurisdiction of the UPC, including the limited role of Article 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012 (the “Recast Brussels Regulation”). It also confirms that Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation cannot be used as a springboard for long arm relief.
(The relevant provisions of the Recast Brussels Regulation are at the end of this article.)
Background
KeeeX filed an infringement action in June 2025 in the Paris LD against a number of defendants: Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, Truepic and entities associated with the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity and the Joint Development Foundation.
The patent-in-issue, EP 2 949 070, relates to a method for externally verifying the integrity and authenticity of blocks of digital data. The defendants raised preliminary objections alleging that the UPC lacked jurisdiction, both domestic and international. On 27 November 2025 the Paris LD rejected those objections and held that it had jurisdiction not only over infringement within the UPC Member States but also for alleged infringement in Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland. Multiple defendants appealed.
Decision
On 13 March 2026 the CoA set aside the Paris LD’s order insofar as it asserted jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of EP 2 949 070.
It confirmed that Article 71b(3) of the Brussels Regulation Recast does provide for an additional rule of jurisdiction in the case of defendants domiciled outside the EU. However, this rule only applies when the territory of the UPC is the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
The CoA further confirmed that where the UPC has jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation Recast, as the court of the place where the harm occurred or threaten to occur, jurisdiction is limited to infringement within UPC Member States and cannot be used to invoke the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction for infringement in non-UPC countries.
Additionally, the defendant’s attempts to rely on Article 71b(3) to invoke the court’s long-arm jurisdiction failed because its statement of claim did not clearly explain why the UPC should have international jurisdiction, nor did it provide enough evidence about the conditions needed to apply Article 71b(3). Specifically, it failed to show that the defendant companies had valuable assets in UPC member states, which is a requirement for this provision to be relied upon.
(i) Reasoning and (ii) application to the facts
The Court of Appeal structured its analysis in three parts:
First, “in-house competence”.
(i) The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the test for where an infringement has occurred or is likely to occur under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA is aligned with Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, as both provisions seek to anchor jurisdiction to the connection between the dispute and the court seised. Where alleged infringement arises from online activity, it is sufficient that the website is accessible within the court’s territory, and there is no requirement that it be specifically directed at users in that jurisdiction.
(ii) In this case, the CoA accepted that the Paris LD had internal jurisdiction because the defendants’ content verification software was freely available online and accessible from France.
Second, “international jurisdiction”.
(i) The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the UPC’s international jurisdiction is determined by the Recast Brussels Regulation, which applies directly to the UPC as a common court, with national rules on private international law such as Article 14 of the French Civil Code having no application. Where jurisdiction is based on a defendant’s domicile under Article 4(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, the court seised retains jurisdiction over infringement even if validity of a foreign patent is raised as an objection, as confirmed by the CJEU in BSH Hausgeräte. Exclusive jurisdiction over validity, however, remains with the courts of the country in which the patent was granted. By contrast, where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 7(2), as the court of the place in which the damage occurred, it is strictly limited to damage occurring within the forum’s territory.
(ii) In this case, all defendants were domiciled outside the European Union, save for Adobe Systems Software Ireland and OpenAI Ireland, whose presence in Ireland did not assist because Ireland is not a Contracting Member State of the UPC (yet). None of the defendants disputed the UPC’s jurisdiction in respect of alleged acts committed within UPC territory. The dispute on appeal therefore concerned only claims relating to alleged damage in non‑Contracting States, which Keeex sought to justify by asserting worldwide damage and relying on BSH Hausgeräte. The CoA rejected that approach, holding that where jurisdiction is based solely on Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, it is strictly limited to damage occurring within UPC territory and cannot be extended to non‑UPC countries.
Third, “verification of its jurisdiction by the judge”.
(i) The CoA emphasised that a court must be able to assess its own international jurisdiction in light of all available information, including challenges raised by the defendant, even though it is not required to take evidence at the jurisdictional stage. In the UPC context, this is reflected in Rule 13(1)(i) of the Rules of Procedure and the preamble to the Rules, which require claimants to explain jurisdiction clearly and to present their case in full at an early stage so that defendants can respond appropriately. As a result, the burden lies squarely on the claimant to plead and substantiate the factual and legal basis for both domestic and international jurisdiction, including, where reliance is placed on Article 71b(3), the specific elements needed to justify extending jurisdiction to non‑UPC countries. These are stringent conditions including the existence of non trivial assets in a Member State with a sufficient connection to the dispute.
(ii) In this case, the CoA held that Keeex’s statement of claim did not adequately explain the basis for international jurisdiction, either in relation to extending jurisdiction to other national parts of the patent or in meeting the conditions of Article 71b(3), which requires the presence of assets of non trivial value within UPC territory. That deficiency could not be remedied by later filed exhibits purporting to show assets in France, and the Court left open whether “damage caused outside the Union” under Article 71b(3) can encompass infringement of other national patent rights.
Conclusion
The CoA has drawn a clearer boundary around cross border relief and has elevated the standard for pleading international jurisdiction in UPC cases.
The decision confirms that where the UPC has jurisdiction as the court for the place where the harmful event occurred (Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation), that jurisdiction is limited to infringement within the territory of the UPC’s Member States. Article 7(2) is therefore not a springboard for long arm jurisdiction, and Article 71b(3) is an ancillary and narrow path that will require careful pleading and evidence.
Implications for businesses and practitioners
Pleading discipline is critical. A statement of claim must clearly explain the basis for jurisdiction and where relief is sought beyond the UPC territory it must set out both the legal route relied upon and the supporting facts. Reliance on Article 7(2) will generally confine a case to UPC territory, while any attempt to go further and establish long-arm jurisdiction requires a proper Article 4 (where the defendant is domiciled in a UPC Member State) or Article 8 (where the defendant is closely connected to an anchor defendant that is domiciled in a UPC Member State) or a fully pleaded Article 71b(3) case, including identification of non-European Union domiciled defendants, European Union harm, and non-trivial assets in a Member State capable of supporting enforcement.
Articles 7 and 71b of the Recast Brussels Regulation
For ease of reference, the Articles substantively discussed in this article are below:
Article 7
“A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State:
[…]
(2) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;”
Article 71b
“The jurisdiction of a common court shall be determined as follows:
(1) a common court shall have jurisdiction where, under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court would have jurisdiction in a matter governed by that instrument;
(2) where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, and this Regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II shall apply as appropriate regardless of the defendant’s domicile. Application may be made to a common court for provisional, including protective, measures even if the courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter;
(3) where a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant under point 2 in a dispute relating to an infringement of a European patent giving rise to damage within the Union, that court may also exercise jurisdiction in relation to damage arising outside the Union from such an infringement. Such jurisdiction may only be established if property belonging to the defendant is located in any Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court and the dispute has a sufficient connection with any such Member State.”
The order in French can be found here and in English here.
