UPC: First referral to the CJEU on the jurisdiction and liability of authorised representatives

In this landmark request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court is dealing for the first time with fundamental questions concerning the jurisdiction and liability of authorised representatives under the Product Safety Regulation. The Court of Appeal referred questions on the interpretation of the Brussels Ia Regulation to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In proceedings for a preliminary injunction against a manufacturer based in China, a GmbH based in Germany is also a defendant; this company does not distribute any products itself, but is merely named on the packaging as the "authorised representative" under the Product Safety Regulation. The alleged patent infringements concern both Member States of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Spain as a non-Member State. The Court of Appeal ruled on the merits for all Member States of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in respect of the Chinese manufacturer, but stayed the proceedings with regard to the jurisdiction over the Chinese manufacturer for acts in Spain, as well as with regard to the liability of the authorised representative. It addresses, in particular, the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

Can there be a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation if two related actions are heard separately – namely against an enterprise from a third country which is accused of patent infringement in a non-Member State of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, and against an enterprise from a Member State of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court which is involved as an intermediary?

Is Article 71b(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the Unified Patent Court also has jurisdiction against an enterprise from a third country if the latter infringes a European patent and offers its products via almost identical websites in several Member States of the European Union?

Does it play a role for jurisdiction that the third-country enterprise uses the services of an enterprise from a Member State of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court?

Does Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive preclude the issuance of a preliminary injunction against an "authorised representative" acting for a third-country enterprise, even though the latter itself only performs certain statutory tasks? (UPC 6.3.2026, CoA 789/2025, CoA 813/2025)