Knaus Tabbert loses UPC appeal, court affirms jurisdiction over pre‑2023 infringements

Introduction

On 18 August 2026, the Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal confirmed its competence to hear patent infringement claims that began before the Court opened in June 2023, clarifying the temporal scope of the UPC Agreement’s substantive‑law application. Patentees and alleged infringers with continuing infringement now face a single forum for relief, and distinct periods are governed by different legal regimes.

Full News Breakdown

A patent‑infringement allegation against a German camper‑van producer, whose contested activity began before the UPC became operational and continued afterwards, triggered the dispute. The core disagreement concerned whether the newly created court could adjudicate a claim that spanned both pre‑ and post‑opening periods. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that its jurisdiction was limited to conduct arising after June 2023 and set out a framework for applying the appropriate law to each temporal segment.

• Case Name: Knaus Tabbert v European Patent Holder

• Court: Unified Patent Court, Court of Appeal

• Panel: Three‑judge panel (names omitted)

• Date: 18 August 2026

• Citation: UPC‑CA 2026‑08‑18

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

• Key Provisions: Article 31 (jurisdiction), Article 33 (applicable law)

• Primary Legal Issue: Temporal jurisdiction and applicable substantive law for infringements spanning the pre‑ and post‑UPC eras

• Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: The UPC should retain competence over continuing infringements and apply the Agreement to post‑opening conduct while using national law for the earlier period.

• Respondent/Defendant Arguments: The Court lacked jurisdiction over conduct that originated before its establishment. Any relief should be limited to post‑June 2023 acts.

• Court's Reasoning: The Agreement expressly grants jurisdiction over “continuing infringements” and permits the Court to apply different substantive regimes to distinct temporal phases of the same conduct.

• Holding: The UPC may hear mixed‑period infringement claims, applying the relevant law to each period.

• Operative Order: The appeal is dismissed; the lower‑court decision is upheld.

• Practical Outcome: Parties can now pursue a unified claim covering the entire infringement timeline, avoiding parallel national proceedings.

How Does This Affect You?

Before the judgment, litigants were uncertain whether the UPC could entertain claims that began before its launch, prompting many to split cases between national courts and the UPC. The Court affirmed that its jurisdiction extends to continuing infringements, applying the Agreement to post‑opening conduct and national law to the earlier phase. This creates a single procedural track for ongoing disputes and eliminates the need for parallel national proceedings.

Source: UPC appeal court clarifies handling of infringements that began before UPC era