Central Division Competence Over Mixed Corporate Groups at the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal clarifies that the central division is competent to hear infringement actions against a multinational corporate group even if only one defendant is domiciled outside the Contracting Member States.
When drafting a statement of claim against a multinational corporate group comprising both European subsidiaries and non-European manufacturing hubs, the choice of division often feels like a jurisdictional puzzle. If you anchor the suit to a German parent company, the local division beckons. But what happens when you anchor the entire group to a Chinese or Serbian subsidiary to access the central division? The Court of Appeal has now provided a definitive answer.
Why did the Paris central division reject competence over the mixed Bosch group?
In the first instance proceedings, Valeo sued six Bosch entities at the central division in Paris for infringing EP 2 671 766. The defendants included four European companies, one Serbian entity, and one Chinese entity. Valeo relied on Article 33(1) UPCA to establish competence. The four European entities filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP.
The Paris central division upheld the objection. The lower court reasoned that the central division's competence for non-European defendants was an exception that applied only if all defendants resided outside the Contracting Member States. Consequently, the judge-rapporteur transferred the action to the Düsseldorf local division based on the German parent company's domicile.
How did the Court of Appeal interpret Article 33(1) UPCA for non-European defendants?
The Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_4/2026 dismantled the lower court's restrictive reading. The panel held that the third paragraph of Article 33(1) UPCA does not constitute an exception to the competence of local and regional divisions. The wording contains no limitation requiring all defendants to be established outside the Contracting Member States.
Instead, the central division acts as a substitute forum. Just as a local division takes jurisdiction over a group of defendants if one anchor defendant resides in its territory under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA, the central division takes jurisdiction over the entire group if one anchor defendant resides outside the Contracting Member States.
Why does the anchor defendant mechanism apply to the central division?
The panel emphasised the legislative intent to avoid parallel proceedings and contradictory decisions. If the central division could not hear the case against the European co-defendants, Valeo would be forced to split its litigation or abandon the central division entirely in favour of a local division competent for the European entities.
The Court of Appeal found this contrary to the ratio legis of Article 33(1) UPCA. To make the rule effective, the anchor mechanism of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA applies equally to defendants domiciled outside the territory. The central division becomes the competent division for the action as soon as no local or regional division is competent regarding the domicile of one of the other defendants.
What must claimants consider when structuring multinational infringement actions after UPC_CoA_4/2026?
This decision significantly expands forum shopping opportunities for claimants targeting global supply chains. If a commercial relationship exists and the action concerns the same alleged infringement, a single non-European defendant provides a valid anchor for central division competence over the entire corporate group.
Claimants no longer need to default to a local division merely because a European parent company is joined to the suit. Practitioners must carefully document the commercial link and the shared infringement facts to survive a preliminary objection. By confirming that the central division is a co-equal forum rather than a narrow exception, the Court of Appeal has given patentees a powerful tool for centralising complex multinational disputes.