Case: Roku International B.V. and Roku Inc. v. Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust – Court of Appeal, 6 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_288/2025; UPC_CoA_290/2025; UPC_CoA_291/2025)
The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals brought by Roku against orders of the Munich Local Division rejecting Rule 19 objections in ongoing infringement actions filed by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The appeals challenged, inter alia, the UPC’s international competence, the legality of the Administrative Committee’s decision to assign Milan the competences of the former London section of the Central Division, and the obligation to pay multiple appeal fees where proceedings raise identical questions.
The Court confirmed that the UPC’s jurisdictional regime under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Arts. 71a and 71b Brussels Ia Regulation and Art. 32 UPCA is fully compatible with EU law. It further held that the Administrative Committee was entitled, by analogous application of Art. 87.2 UPCA, to determine that Milan replaces London as Central Division seat with the competences listed in Annex II UPCA. Finally, the Court clarified that appeal fees under Rule 228 RoP are payable for each appeal filed, irrespective of whether the proceedings involve identical issues.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that Rule 19.1 RoP sets out an exhaustive list of admissible objections. These include objections concerning the competence of the Court under Rule 19.1(a), which encompasses the validity of the jurisdictional provisions themselves. By contrast, alleged infringements of Art. 47.2 EU-Charter or Art. 6 ECHR do not constitute independent grounds for objection under Rule 19.1 unless they directly concern a listed category.
Addressing the substance of Roku’s competence challenge, the Court confirmed that the UPC qualifies as a “common court” of the Contracting Member States within the meaning of Art. 71a Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court noted that the UPC, although established by international agreement, forms an integral part of the judicial system of the participating Member States and is bound by EU law to the same extent as national courts. The mechanism for preliminary references under Arts. 20–21 UPCA ensures cooperation with the CJEU, safeguarding the uniform application of Union law. Accordingly, the Court found no interference with the division of competences under Art. 19 TEU or Art. 267 TFEU and therefore declined to refer the matter to the CJEU.
Roku’s argument that the absence of a Central Division branch in London violates the right to a tribunal “established by law” under Art. 47.2 EU-Charter and Art. 6 ECHR was likewise rejected. The Court held that the Administrative Committee was authorised, by analogy to Art. 87.2 UPCA, to adopt a decision ensuring the operability of the Court’s structure in view of the UK’s withdrawal from the UPCA. The transfer of the London competences to Milan was consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 87 UPCA and did not affect judicial independence or impartiality.
Finally, the Court ruled that the fixed and, where applicable, value-based appeal fees must be paid for each appeal lodged. The fact that several appeals concern the same parties and identical legal questions does not alter this requirement.
The decision provides (further) clarity on three fundamental points of UPC procedure. First, the Court confirmed that objections under Rule 19 are strictly limited to the enumerated grounds. Broader constitutional or human-rights arguments cannot be introduced at this early procedural stage.
Second, the judgment settles any residual uncertainty concerning the status of the Milan section. The Court’s confirmation that the Administrative Committee validly reassigned London’s competences ensures institutional stability and avoids venue disputes in Central Division cases.
Third, the clarification on appeal fees underscores that each appeal is a separate proceeding for cost purposes, even where multiple files are substantively identical. This has practical implications for litigation budgeting and case strategy.
