The Unified Patent Court has signalled that its reach extends well beyond its own member states, and IP-intensive businesses should take note. In its 2 June 2026 decision in Fujifilm v Kodak, the UPC Court of Appeal confirmed that Article 34 of the UPC Agreement is not a territorial cap—where a defendant is domiciled in UPC territory, the Court can hear infringement claims tied to national designations of European patents in non-UPC countries, including the UK. The strategic point is that domicile, not the location of the alleged acts, is now the anchor. For patent owners, that opens a single forum to pursue cross-border relief that once required parallel suits in multiple jurisdictions.

For potential defendants, it means a German (or other UPC-state) corporate footprint can pull your UK and other foreign exposure into one court—worth factoring into where you incorporate, manufacture, and hold title.

But accepting jurisdiction is one thing; exercising it is another, and that distinction is where the commercial discipline lies. The Court built in safeguards through comity: it can grant relief on foreign designations subject to a condition that the patent isn’t later found invalid by the competent national court, giving defendants a clear incentive to move fast in national revocation forums if they want to resist a long-arm injunction. And clearing the jurisdictional hurdle guarantees nothing on the merits—Fujifilm’s UK claim ultimately failed because, under UK law, supplying goods abroad to a party that later imports them isn’t enough for joint tortfeasorship.

The takeaway for IP strategy: map your domicile and supply-chain structure against this expanded reach, decide early whether to maintain or withdraw extra-territorial claims, and remember that winning jurisdiction is the start of the contest, not the end of it.

Bristows’ full Rapid Reaction analysis is worth reading in full: https://inquisitiveminds.bristows.com/post/102n0w7/rapid-reaction-upc-court-of-appeal-clarifies-the-approach-to-long-arm-claims-fu