GA_P among global leaders in industrial property according to WTR Global Leaders 2025

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits set by the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Such decisions may be recognised and enforced in those other countries, but there are cases in which such recognition and enforcement will not be appropriate.

The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. However, this does not mean that, when hearing such actions, the Court may apply the same rules as if the actions related to a unitary patent.

This document sets out and criticises the doctrine established by the CJEU in its Judgment of 25 February 2025, C-339/22, BSH/Electrolux, ECLI:EU:C:2025:108. Although the dispute underlying the judgment was not brought before the UPC, the interpretation of the CJEU in the BSH/Electrolux judgment is equally applicable, since said court is equivalent to the national courts of the contracting states party to the UPC Agreement.

Ever since coming into operation, there has been a tendency on the part of the Unified Patent Court to extend its jurisdiction to include patents that produce effects in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC Agreement’ or ‘Agreement’), as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain. This phenomenon is known in specialised circles as the court's ‘long arm’. However, although in certain cases the Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC’ or ‘Court’) does indeed have such jurisdiction, this is only possible within strict limits, limits that do not seem to be taken into consideration in a consistent manner.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

A look at the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-589/23, Cassella-med and MCM Klosterfrau, ECLI:EU:C:2025:173.

Santander Companies Court No. 2 Judgment no. 12/2025 of 21 February, which is not conclusive, is analysed.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.