Context: Spain is an EU member state but not a Unified Patent Court (UPC) contracting member state, which involves cross-border enforcement questions when a Spanish-domiciled defendant is pulled into UPC proceedings. The UPC’s first Spanish injunction came in a Dyson (August 18, 2025 ip fray article). In August 2024, Dainese, the Italian protective gear manufacturer, sued Alpinestars and several co-defendants at the UPC Milan Local Division (LD), initially asserting two European patents: EP3498117 (“Garment for a user’s protection comprising an inflatable member”) and EP4072364 (“protective device and method for making said protective device”) against Alpinestars’ Tech Air 3 and Tech Air 10 airbag vest systems. The EPO Opposition Division maintained EP’364 in amended form on November 19, 2025; Alpinestars appealed on December 1, 2025. During the proceedings, Dainese narrowed the UPC action over EP’364 against three defendants: Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Spanish distributor Motocard Bike S.L.
What’s new: In a judgment handed down yesterday ( April 21, 2026), the Milan LD upheld EP’364 as valid and found no infringement in Italy and Portugal. For Spain, it confirmed jurisdiction over Motocard under Art. 8 Brussels Recast. However, it stayed the infringement claim for the territory of Spain. This is the first time the UPC has stayed a long-arm infringement claim pending a revocation action in a non-contracting member state.
Direct impact: Alpinestars can continue selling its Tech Air products without any injunction or damages exposure for now. Meanwhile, Dainese’s EP’364 survives. The Spanish infringement claim is frozen until the Spanish nullity proceedings conclude definitively. Each side bears its own costs, reflecting a mixed outcome.
Wider ramifications: The decision is an early and careful contribution to the UPC’s developing long-arm jurisprudence. The court set out a four-part test for Art. 8 jurisdiction over EU non-contracting member state defendants, same factual situation, same legal situation, predictability, no abuse, and applied it methodically, signaling the UPC is not engaging in reckless overreach. The stay of the Spanish-territory claim, following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision in BSH v. Electrolux (C-339/22) (February 25, 2025 ip fray article), shows the UPC may pump the brakes where a non-contracting member state court has exclusive jurisdiction over validity and proceedings are ongoing. It should be noted that pulling a distributor from a non-contracting member state into UPC proceedings is possible (an anchor defendant provided), but the infringement claim for that territory may well be stayed if local revocation proceedings are running in parallel.
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Court and counsel
Milan LD: Presiding Judge Pierluigi Perrotti, Judge-rapporteur Alima Zana, Legally Qualified Judge Anna-Lena Klein, and Technically Qualified Judge Graham Ashley.
Dainese is being represented by SIB LEX’s Mario Pozzi, Federico Caruso, Davide Rondano, and SIB’s Marta Manfrin.
Alpinestars and Alpinestars Research are being represented by DLA Piper’s Massimiliano Tiberio, Gualtiero Dragotti, Dr. Constanze Krenz, David Kless (“Kleß”), and Dr. Joschua Fiedler, as well as Dragotti’s Roberto Pistolesi and Luca Marri.
Motocard Bike is being represented by DLA Piper’s Gualtiero Luca Dragotti, Constanze Krenz, David Kless (“Kleß”), and Massimiliano Tiberio.