Article 71

1.   This Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which, in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments.

2.   With a view to its uniform interpretation, paragraph 1 shall be applied in the following manner:
(a) this Regulation shall not prevent a court of a Member State which is party to a convention on a particular matter from assuming jurisdiction in accordance with that convention, even where the defendant is domiciled in another Member State which is not party to that convention. The court hearing the action shall, in any event, apply Article 28 of this Regulation;
(b) judgments given in a Member State by a court in the exercise of jurisdiction provided for in a convention on a particular matter shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States in accordance with this Regulation.
Where a convention on a particular matter to which both the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed are parties lays down conditions for the recognition or enforcement of judgments, those conditions shall apply. In any event, the provisions of this Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments may be applied.

UPC Case law:

IPPT20260622, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Evac v Shanghai VacDrain

Preliminary objection on international jurisdiction dismissed – Patent infringed, permanent injunction granted. (Article 25 UPCA , Article 26 UPCA , Article 63 UPCA, Rule 19.1(a) RoP) Jurisdiction and competence of court (Article 4(1) , Article 71b(1) Brussels Regulation) Jurisdiction arises since the defendant has its registered office in a UPC member state (Hamburg, Germany). No objection on jurisdiction raised by Chinese defendant. 

IPPT20260407, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v DREAME

Patent valid and infringed. Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 (1) RoP).Jurisdiction and Competence (Article 4, Article 8 (1), Article 71 Brussels Regulation).UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels for every defendant, who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. The UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to the Spanish defendant, as a “close connection” according to Article 8 (1) Brussels is established. No international jurisdiction over the UK defendant regarding the UK part of patent (Article 8 Brussels Regulation).Legal requirements that are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, or at least Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, but to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU, are not a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants under Art. 8 BR.UK National part of patent. The fact, that a party is the Authorized Representative for a non-EU based manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is – as far as the evidence shows – not a sufficient basis for qualifying this party being a joint tortfeasor with the actual importer or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law. (Article 62 , 63 (1) UPCA). 

IPPT20260206, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v MicroTech

Preliminary injunction granted - likelihood of infringement (Article 25 UPCA , Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 (1) RoP) UPC has competence and internation jurisdiction over the Spanish part of the EP in Spain. (Article 4, Article 8 (1), Article 71 Brussels Regulation). All divisions of the UPC are courts of domicile according to art. 4 BR when the defendant is domiciled anywhere within the UPCA territory. The Court is equally competent and has international jurisdiction regarding the non-UCPA domiciled Defendants 1 and 2. (Article 71 b (2) , Article 8 (1) Brussels regulation) .