IP Insights webinar series 2026: A cross-border look at preliminary injunctions in IP matters

Cross-Border IP Shifts

The landscape of intellectual property enforcement in Europe transformed dramatically in 2025 with the expansion of long-arm jurisdiction. This allows courts like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to issue preliminary injunctions affecting patents validated in multiple countries, including those outside the UPC's core territory. Triggered by the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux on February 25, 2025, EU-domiciled courts can now assert authority over infringement claims involving foreign validations if an anchor defendant resides in the jurisdiction. This shift stems from interpretations of the Brussels Recast Regulation, which prioritizes domicile for infringement but reserves validity questions for the patent's home country.

Concrete impacts emerged quickly. In August 2025, the UPC's Hamburg Local Division in Dyson v Dreame International granted provisional measures not only across UPC states but also over Spain, a non-participating EU country. Similarly, the Munich Regional Court in September 2025 issued an injunction in Regeneron v Formycon covering 22 European validations of a bundle patent. These rulings affect industries like technology and pharmaceuticals, where halting sales can cost companies millions daily. For instance, biosimilar drug launches have been delayed, benefiting originators but raising drug prices for consumers in affected markets.

Stakes are high with tight deadlines. Preliminary injunction applications at the UPC often resolve within three months, far faster than traditional litigation. Costs range from 200,000 to 500,000 euros per case, but inaction risks permanent market exclusion. Consequences include supply chain disruptions; a single ruling can bar products from 22 countries, forcing rerouting or reformulation at enormous expense. Risks of inaction are amplified for defendants, as ex parte orders—granted without hearing the other side in urgent cases—can impose immediate daily fines for non-compliance.

Non-obvious tensions lurk beneath the efficiency. Sovereignty clashes arise as UPC rulings encroach on non-members like the UK and Switzerland, potentially prompting opt-outs or retaliatory measures. In the Onesta v BMW case, a German court entertained US patent claims in November 2025, only for a Texas court to counter with an anti-anti-suit injunction on December 16, 2025, protecting its jurisdiction. This escalates to broader trade-offs: patentees gain streamlined protection, but defendants face forum shopping and fragmented validity outcomes. Surprising data shows UPC preliminary injunction success rates exceeding 60%, yet appeals in early 2026 could narrow this scope, introducing uncertainty for global strategies.

Another angle involves standard essential patents (SEPs), where courts in Germany, Brazil, and Colombia showed increased willingness to grant injunctions in 2025. This counters past reluctance due to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations, but it heightens risks for implementers in tech standards like WiFi or automotive connectivity. Overall, these developments signal a more aggressive enforcement era, with 2026 likely to see WTO interventions or CJEU clarifications amid growing international friction.