Case Law
Article 34: Territorial scope of decisions

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 03/03/2025, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited (Case/ Registry number: APL_51115/2024, ORD_68841/2024)
Example of decision on automatic territorial scope: "It is set out in Art. 34 UPCA that decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those CMS for which the European patent has effect. This provision is visible to all actual and potential parties to proceedings before the UPC, and so is the fact that several EU Member States have signed the UPCA but not yet ratified and acceded to the UPCA. There are no transitional rules connected to Art. 34 UPCA. When a UPC Signatory State ratifies and accedes, the application of Art. 34 UPCA should be automatic and not subject to limitations, from the day of accession."

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 15/11/2024, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_15/2023, ORD_598479/2023)
Example of decision on implementation of corrective measures in contracting member states: "Art. 34 UPCA stipulates that injunctive relief, and other corrective measures can be ordered with respect to all contracting member states where the European Patent has effect and for which a decision of the Court has been requested as long as an infringing act or the danger of first infringement has been proven for at least one contracting member state."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 02/08/2024, FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_355/2023, ORD_40822/2024)
Example of decision on territorial limitation of the amendments: " In the light of Art. 34 UPCA and the requirements of - as a rule - a uniform decision, the territorial limitation of the amendments should only be considered if there are objective reasons for such a limitation. After all, the amendments are the basis for the subsequent decision. If the patentee defends the patent in a limited way in some countries and not in others, this is ultimately the first step towards a later, non-uniform decision. Therefore, a territorial limitation of the amendments should only be possible if there are objective reasons for it."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 30/06/2023, myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG (Case number UPC_CFI 177/2023, ORD_543068/2023)
Example of decision on the territorial scope of decisions: “Insofar as the applicant refers to Article 34 UPCA in support of her claim, she ultimately raises the question of the scope of the order already made on the basis of the provisions of the Convention. The obvious incorrectness of the order in the aforementioned sense, which is required for a correction under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure, cannot be justified on this basis from the outset."