UPC_CFI_360/2026

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-06-10procedural

  Applicant:

  INFOBLOX GERMANY GMBH; INFOBLOX INC.; Nixu FL IP Protection LLC; NOMIOS GERMANY GMBH

  1. Section 55 of Florida Statutes which make the recognition of foreign court judgments conditioned to the assessment that there is no conflict with the ordre publique, that reciprocity must be guaranteed, and that the principles of a fair trial must be upheld, does as such not give reasons to assume that the enforcement of a cost decision by the UPC in Florida could be doubtful. These principles are international standards and equally present in European jurisdictions and do not justify the ordering of a security according to R. 158 RoP. 2. If a claimant’s assets essentially consist of a patent portfolio, who’s value not only naturally depends on the outcome of the patent infringement proceedings (see CoA, Order of 17 September 2024 – UPC_CoA_217/2024), but where all licenses to such patents, as well as all income, royalties, proceeds and liabilities are already pledged to someone else, claimant is rendered basically assetless in an economical sense, which justifies the ordering of a security according to R. 158 RoP.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-06-08preliminary injunction

  Applicant:

  INFOBLOX GERMANY GMBH; INFOBLOX INC.; Nixu FL IP Protection LLC; NOMIOS GERMANY GMBH

  dismissed

  1. 2. 3. Rule 13.1(i) RoP requires that a claimant provides the relevant facts on which the Court can assess its jurisdiction, without necessarily mentioning the exact legal provision in the applicable regulation, as it is the Court’s duty to apply the relevant law, without any necessity that a party is citing the (correct) law provision. As the UPC is a Court with a territory encompassing all Contracting Member States, Defendants who are sued in their universal place of jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels- Ia-Regulation can function as an anchor for the entire territory of the UPC member states for a Defendant registered in a third country, Art. 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation. However, the place and effect of infringing acts by Defendant registered in a UPCA Member State are relevant to establish jurisdiction under Art. 8 (1) Brussels-Ia- Regulation, when it comes to invoke the UPC’S jurisdiction over a national part of a European Patent in a country that is not a member of the UPCA (here the UK). This deviates from the legal situation under Art. 4 Brussels- Ia-Regulation. Only for the jurisdiction under Art. 4 Brussels-Ia-Regulation it is not necessary to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by these Defendants, because then the connection with the UPC territory is established by the domicile and not the location where the acts of the defendant occurred.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF