Views
The problematic exclusivity of the UPC on provisional measures in relation with PMAC arbitrations
Guest post by Danilo Ruggero Di Bella (Bottega Di Bella)
This post delves into the issues stemming from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on interim relief in relation with the judicial support of the arbitrations administered by the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC).
Risks of divesting State courts of competence on interim measures
On one hand, article 32(1)(c) UPC Agreement (UPCA) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC to issue provisional measures in disputes concerning classical European patents and European patents with unitary effect. Under article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (UPC RoP), the UPC may grant interim injunctions against an alleged infringer or against an intermediary whose services are used by the alleged infringer, intended to prevent any imminent infringement, to prohibit the continuation of the alleged infringement under the threat of recurring penalties, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the patent holder. The UPC may also order the provisional seizure or delivery up of the products suspected of infringing a patent so as to prevent their entry into, or movement, within the channels of commerce. Further, the UPC may order a precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the defendant (such its bank accounts), if an applicant demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, as well as an interim award of costs. Additionally, under article 60 UPCA, the UPC may order provisional measures to preserve evidence in respect of the alleged infringement and to inspect premises.
A Plea for Private International Law
A new paper by Michael Green, A Plea for Private International Law (Conflict of Laws), was recently published as an Essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. Michael argues that although private international law is increasingly important in our interconnected world, it has fallen out of favor at top U.S. law schools. To quote from the Essay:
Private international law has not lost its jurisprudential import. And ease of travel, communication, and trade have only increased in the last century. But in American law schools (although not abroad), private international law has started dropping out of the curriculum, with the trend accelerating in the last five years or so. We have gone through US News and World Report’s fifty top-ranked law schools and, after careful review, it appears that twelve have not offered a course on private international law (or its equivalent) in the last four academic years: Arizona State University, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University, and University of Washington. And even where the course is taught, in some law schools—such as Duke, New York University, and Yale—it is by visitors, adjuncts, or emerita. It is no longer a valued subject in faculty hiring.
CJEU’s first ruling on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention
by Guillaume Croisant, Claudia Cavicchioli, Nicole Rölike, Alexia Kaztaridou, and Julie Esquenazi (all Linklaters)
In a nutshell: reinforced legal certainty but questions remain
In its decision of yesterday (27 February 2025) in the Lastre case (Case C-537/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its long-awaited first judgment on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention.
The Court ruled that the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses is assessed in the light of the autonomous rules of Article 25 of the regulation (rather than Member States’ national laws) and confirmed their validity where the clause can be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States.
This decision dispels some of the previous uncertainties, particularly arising from the shifting case law of the French Supreme Court. The details of the decision and any possible impact, in particular the requirement for the clause to be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, will need to be analysed more closely, but on the whole the CJEU strengthened foreseeability and consistency regarding unilateral jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I regulation and the Lugano convention.
Besides other sectors, this decision is of particular relevance in international financing transactions, including syndicated loans and capital markets, where asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in favour of the finance parties have been a long-standing practice.
News
Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts: Conference in Paris, 9 February 2026
The international character of contracts is currently undergoing significant transformations. Whether deliberately chosen by the parties, rejected by domestic courts, endured in certain regulatory contexts, or even rendered obsolete, the notion of internationality – long considered a cornerstone of private international law – calls for renewed analysis. Against this background, a conference entitled “Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts” will be held on Monday, 9 February 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Grand Chamber of the French Court of Cassation.
List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments [2025 Update]
As the new year begins, it’s a good time for a fresh start. One timely occasion to do so is the release, on 31 December 2025, of the annual update of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments (Case List), prepared since 2019 by China Justice Observer (CJO), founded by Guodong Du and Meng Yu (updates for the years 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024 were also previously posted on this blog).
The Case List is compiled on the basis of a collection of “all Chinese court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ), as well as foreign decisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments.” The stated intention behind this endeavor is to “build reasonable expectations on REFJ in China.”
The Case List constitutes a particularly valuable source of information on judicial practice relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China, both under international treaties concluded by China (for a full list, see here) and under domestic law, namely the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment), Articles 298–303.
According to the 2025 update, a total of 120 cases involving China and 26 foreign States and regions, excluding foreign divorce judgments, have now been collected. This represents an increase of 11 cases compared to the previous update (109 cases in the 2024 update).
Key features of the 2025 update include the following:
-
The List comprises 26 concise reports for each jurisdiction, together with a chart of bilateral judicial assistance treaties which China has concluded with 39 States, of which 35 bilateral treaties include judgment enforcement clauses.
-
A total of eleven newly added cases involve one treaty jurisdiction – Uzbekistan (one case), and five non-treaty jurisdictions, namely, Australia (one case), New Zealand (four cases), Singapore (two cases), South Korea (two cases), and the United States (one case).
-
Please note that Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259 marks the first reported instance of a New Zealand court recognizing and enforcing a Chinese civil settlement statement (also known as a mediation judgment). By treating such instruments as equivalent to consent judgments, the New Zealand High Court has adopted a pro-enforcement approach consistent with precedents in Canada (Wei v Li 2019 BCCA 114) and Australia (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), providing a clear contrast to the earlier restrictive view expressed in Singapore (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).
-
Another noteworthy case is Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, where a Chinese court refused to enforce a U.S. default judgment rendered in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. By holding that a defendant’s absence does not constitute an implied waiver, the Chinese court shielded arbitration clauses from being bypassed via foreign default judgments.
-
Other newly added cases, be it foreign judgments to be enforced in China or Chinese judgments to be enforced in foreign jurisdictions, provide a valuable comparative perspective on key issues in the eyes of courts from different jurisdictions, such as reciprocity ( e.g., the de jure reciprocity applied by a Beijing court in enforcing a South Korean IP judgment, the reciprocal consensus confirmed by a Shanghai court in enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment), natural justice (New Zealand), ascertainment and interpretation of foreign law (Singapore, Australia).
-
Each case has been reviewed, and more details, such as the grounds, the case numbers, and causes of action, have been added.
-
Case analyses have been aggregated under the country tags since 2022, so it is now easier to track down relevant cases, together with their information and analyses, in each country/region report. For example, under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’, one can find relevant case analyses involving mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the US and China.
For further details see here and here.
Happy New Year to all!
[Out Now] Bruijnen on Recognition of Kafala and Child Marriage in Family Law and Migration Law
Leontine Bruijnen (Maastricht University) has recently published a book titled Recognition of kafala and child marriage in family law and migration law (Wolters Kluwer, 2025) based on her dissertation written under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Thalia Kruger and Prof. Dr. Marta Pertegás. Read more