Territorial Scope of UPC Decisions under Article 34 UPCA: Recent Case Law, Interpretative Trends and Strategic Implications

Why Article 34 UPCA Matters

The territorial scope of decisions issued by the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) is now one of the most strategically significant aspects of patent litigation in Europe. Article 34 UPCA determines the geographic reach of injunctions and other remedies in cases involving European patents, and its interpretation has rapidly evolved through a growing body of case law. A central question is: does infringement in one Contracting Member State (“CMS”) justify injunctive relief across all CMS in which the European patent is in force?

Recent decisions—particularly from the Court of Appeal (“CoA”)—suggest that the UPC is moving decisively toward a unified approach that avoids national fragmentation.

The One-CMS Principle: Establishing Infringement in a Single Jurisdiction

A consistent line of decisions indicates that proof of infringement in a single CMS is sufficient to obtain relief throughout the UPC territory.

This principle was articulated early by LD Munich in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, 15 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_501/2023), where the court affirmed that injunctive and corrective measures may be ordered across all CMS if infringement or the risk of first infringement is shown in at least one state. LD The Hague followed this approach in Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v Arkyne (UPC_CFI_239/2023), granting pan-CMS relief based on infringement in the Netherlands.

The CoA has reinforced this interpretation repeatedly.
In Fives ECL v Reel, January 2025 (UPC_CoA_30/2024), the Court stressed that Article 34 aims to ensure unified decisions, not separate judicial analyses for each CMS. This reasoning was developed further in Sumi Agro Europe Limited v Syngenta, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2025), which confirmed that injunctions “as a rule” extend to all CMS where the patent is in force, barring specific exceptions such as an express territorial limitation by the claimant.

Subsequent LD decisions—Sanofi v Accord, May 2025 (UPC_CFI_463/2024); Tiroler Rohre v SSAB, June 2025 (UPC_CFI_324/2024); and Dyson v Dreame, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_387/2025)—have aligned with the CoA's approach. The CoA further strengthened this interpretation in Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva Portugal, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_446/2025), rejecting arguments that the absence of marketing authorisations outside the defendant’s home market could justify limiting territorial scope.

Outlier Decisions from LD Mannheim and LD Paris

Despite this strong appellate guidance, two Local Divisions have taken a more restrictive approach to Article 34.

In Hurom v NUC Electronics, March 2025 (UPC_CFI_162/2024), LD Mannheim concluded that Article 34 does not extend remedies to CMS beyond those where infringement is proven. According to this view, the provision concerns the effect of decisions rather than the scope of remedies.

Similarly, LD Paris in Seoul Viosys Co v LaserComponents, April 2025 (UPC_CFI_440/2023), granted an injunction only for France, notwithstanding that the claimant had sought relief also in Germany and the Netherlands. Notably, the decision did not address Article 34 at all.

In light of the CoA’s repeated endorsements of the broader interpretation—particularly in Sumi, Insulet v EOFlow (UPC_CoA_768/2024), and Boehringer Ingelheim—these decisions appear isolated. Whether LD Mannheim and LD Paris will maintain this position remains to be seen, but the appellate jurisprudence sets a clear direction.

Accession of New CMS: Dynamic Expansion of Territorial Scope

A further interpretative development concerns the treatment of CMS that accede to the UPCA after proceedings have commenced. The CoA addressed this issue squarely in Sumi Agro Europe Limited v Syngenta (UPC_CoA_523/2025). During the appeal, Romania became a UPC member state. The CoA held that Article 34 applies automatically and without transitional restrictions from the date of accession, allowing the injunction to extend to Romania as requested by applicant during the appeal proceeding.

This clarification also leaves several practical issues unresolved. If a state accedes after a first-instance decision and—unlike in Sumi Agro v Syngenta—no appeal is pending, it is open whether a claimant could extend an existing injunction to the newly joined CMS. How such constellations develop, and how the Court ultimately addresses them, will be closely watched.

Strategic Considerations for Patent Holders and Defendants

The UPC’s evolving case law provides valuable guidance for litigants navigating Article 34 UPCA.

For patent holders, the decisions illustrate that a single well-supported infringement demonstration can secure broad, pan-European relief. This reinforces the strategic value of targeting jurisdictions such as LD Munich or LD The Hague, which have consistently applied the CoA’s expansive interpretation. Care should be taken, however, when framing the territorial scope of claims, as express limitations by the claimant may restrict the final reach of any decision.

For defendants, the case law underscores the need for early and rigorous factual engagement. The UPC’s willingness to extend injunctions across the entire UPC territory means that activities in a single CMS may expose the defendant to Europe-wide measures. Arguments based on limited commercial activity or lack of marketing authorisations in other CMS have repeatedly failed before the CoA.

Outlook: Towards a Fully Integrated Territorial Regime

The UPC’s jurisprudence on Article 34 UPCA is converging around a unified, expansive interpretation that mirrors the intended unifying effect of the Court itself. While isolated divergences persist at first instance, the CoA’s consistency of its decisions strongly suggest that the “one-CMS” principle will remain foundational.

As the UPC expands with new accessions, the practical implications of Article 34 will only become more significant. The Court will likely be called upon to clarify how injunctions interact with future ratifications and whether any circumstances other than claimant-driven limitations may justify restricting territorial scope.

For now, both rights holders and alleged infringers should operate on the assumption that UPC decisions will ordinarily extend across all CMS in which the patent has effect and should plan their strategies accordingly.