UPC Court of Appeal: Competent division

For reasons of efficiency and in view of the urgency of an application for interim measures, R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is therefore also possible in such proceedings (R. 19.5 RoP). If the division seised considers that a defense raised on the competence of the local division is well-founded and the applicant for provisional measures indicated another division that is competent, it shall refer the Application to that division. Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance, regulated in Art. 33 UPCA, is a UPC internal matter. Internal competence is not governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation. For the purpose of establishing the competence of a local division, there is no hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seised in relation to each defendant to establish competence. To determine competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, the existence of infringing activities, for example an offer or the possibility to obtain the allegedly infringing devices through a website accessible in the Contracting Member State hosting the local division, needs to be established (UPC 28 November 2025; CoA 317/2025; CoA 376/2025).