The dangers of the emerging digital art | Cinco Días

The Decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court dated 14 August 2025 grants interim relief because it claims jurisdiction to hear the substance of the matter (both the infringement of the unitary patent in the States party to the UPC Agreement and the Spanish validation of the European patent on which the unitary patent is based). To this end, the court offers a series of observations on its international jurisdiction, not all of which are accurate.

There is no doubt that the registered name of a plant variety may be used by anyone who markets plant material of that variety. However, in this specific case, the Supreme Court's statement that “the term ‘Persimmon’ was used by the defendant to identify a specific variety of caqui” is noteworthy.

In its judgment of 19 June 2025 (European Commission v Republic of Poland, C‑200/24, ECLI:EU:C:2025:459), the Court of Justice has held that the introduction by national legislation of a total prohibition on advertising for pharmacies infringes European Union law.

The judgment of the Regional High Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Cologne of 23 May 2025 (15 UKl 2/25), in which the German court rejects the application for interim relief prohibiting the defendant from processing personal data published by consumers on Facebook and Instagram for the development and improvement of artificial intelligence systems, is analysed.

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.