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
Widiez on Specialisation of Private International Law
Gaëlle Widiez (Bourgogne University) has recently edited a volume entitled The Specialization of Private International Law: Reflections from the Perspective of Business Law (La spécialisation du droit international privé : Réflexion dans le champ du droit des affaires), published by LexisNexis. Read more
Virtual Workshop (in German) on January 13, 2026: Jens Kleinschmidt on “Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Jens Kleinschmidt (Trier University) will speak, in German, about the topic
“Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
Seit zehn Jahren bestimmt die Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung die Planung und Abwicklung grenzüberschreitender Erbfälle in der EU. Eine Überprüfungsklausel (Art. 82 EuErbVO) sieht nach diesem Zeitraum einen Bericht über die Anwendung der Verordnung vor. Dies nimmt der Vortrag zum Anlass, aufbauend auf den Erfahrungen mit dem Rechtsakt über Zukunftsperspektiven nachzudenken. Den Ausgangspunkt bildet dabei das Europäische Nachlasszeugnis, dessen effet utile in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH wiederholt die Auslegung der gesamten Verordnung geleitet hat.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
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.