Munich Local Division confirms jurisdiction in online patent dispute based on website accessibility, taking into account facts presented in response to motion

Context:

• Repairify is a US-based provider of remote diagnostic and programming solutions for the automotive repair industry, while Jifeline comprises Netherlands-based companies offering remote diagnostic services and related hardware to automotive service providers. The dispute between Repairify and Jifeline concerns the alleged infringement of a European patent covering a remote vehicle programming system. The case arises in the context of remote diagnostic solutions used in the automotive repair sector, where services are delivered through a combination of hardware components and online platforms.
• Repairify brought an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Munich Local Division (LD) in late 2025, alleging both direct and indirect infringement. In response, the defendants raised a preliminary objection (PO) challenging the territorial competence of the Munich division, arguing that the claimant had failed to establish a sufficient link between the alleged acts of infringement and Germany. The defendant requested the dismissal of the complaint or a transfer to the Hague LD.

What’s new: The Munich LD rejected the defendants’ PO and confirmed its territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The court deemed it sufficient, at this stage, that the alleged harm may occur in the relevant contracting member state, without requiring a conclusive showing of infringement. It took into account not only the factual allegations in the complaint, but also those found in the plaintiff’s response to the PO. In particular, the court found that the accessibility of the defendants’ websites in Germany, combined with the possibility of obtaining the allegedly infringing services, was sufficient to establish a territorial connection. It further confirmed that even the risk of future infringement may justify jurisdiction.

Direct impact: The decision allows the infringement proceedings to continue before the Munich LD, with the case now moving forward to the merits stage. For the claimant, this secures access to a UPC forum despite the cross-border and digital nature of the alleged infringement.

Wider ramifications: For defendants operating through online platforms and distributed service models, the decision signals that jurisdiction may be established relatively easily within the UPC system, even in the absence of concrete evidence of completed acts of infringement in a specific territory.