How to Litigate Cross‑border IP Disputes in France in 2026: Forum Choice, Injunctions and the UPC Era

Cross-border IP litigation in France has entered a new strategic era in 2026, shaped by surging Unified Patent Court (UPC) filings, the continued refinement of Brussels I Recast jurisdiction rules, and France’s own powerful arsenal of emergency measures. For in‑house counsel, patent owners and trademark holders deciding where to sue, how to secure rapid injunctive relief, and how to enforce judgments across the European Union, France remains one of the most tactically significant forums available. This practitioner playbook delivers a step‑by‑step decision framework, from forum selection through to cross‑border enforcement, designed for rights‑holders who need to act decisively and protect their IP across multiple jurisdictions.

Executive Decision Checklist for Cross‑Border IP Litigation in France

Before diving into legal frameworks, every rights‑holder facing a cross‑border infringement should work through a structured action plan. The following six‑point checklist captures the critical decisions that drive timing, cost and outcome in cross-border IP litigation in France.

1. Choose your forum. Evaluate whether French national courts, the UPC, or another EU Member State court offers the best combination of speed, territorial scope and enforcement power for your specific IP right.
2. Preserve evidence immediately. In France, the saisie‑contrefaçon mechanism allows judicial seizure of infringing goods and evidence, often within hours. Activate this before the infringer has time to destroy or conceal proof.
3. Assess emergency measures. Determine whether you need interim injunctions (référé), precautionary seizures, or expedited trial proceedings to stop ongoing harm.
4. Trace and preserve assets. If damages will be a significant part of your claim, identify the infringer’s assets in France and across the EU early to support future enforcement.
5. Build an enforcement plan. Map every jurisdiction where the infringer operates. Plan how a French judgment or UPC order will be recognised and enforced in each target country under the Brussels I Recast framework.
6. Budget and resource. French IP litigation costs are generally competitive compared to Germany or the UK. Factor in court fees, bailiff costs for saisie operations, expert fees and potential security deposits.

Quick Timeline: When to Act

• 0–24 hours. Instruct French counsel; prepare and file a saisie‑contrefaçon request if evidence preservation is urgent. Obtain an ex parte order from the presiding judge of the Tribunal Judiciaire.
• 1–7 days. Execute the saisie; file for référé (emergency injunction) if interim relief is needed. Begin notifying customs authorities if goods are crossing borders.
• 1 month. File the main infringement action (mandatory deadline after saisie‑contrefaçon under Article L. 615‑5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). Finalise forum‑selection analysis for any parallel UPC or foreign proceedings.

Legal Framework: Brussels I Recast, French Law and UPC Basics

Three overlapping legal regimes govern forum selection and enforcement in cross‑border IP disputes involving France. Understanding how they interact is essential to any patent litigation strategy in France or broader EU enforcement campaign.

Brussels I Recast (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) establishes the default jurisdictional rules for civil and commercial matters across EU Member States. For IP disputes, it provides that defendants can be sued in the courts of their domicile (Article 4), but rights‑holders may also invoke special jurisdiction at the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur (Article 7(2)). For disputes concerning the registration or validity of IP rights, exclusive jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State where the right is registered (Article 24(4)).

The Regulation also sets out a streamlined framework for cross‑border recognition and enforcement of judgments, which is critical for rights‑holders seeking to enforce IP in France or enforce a French order elsewhere in the EU.

French national law, principally the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) and the Code de procédure civile (CPC), provides France’s distinctive procedural tools. These include the saisie‑contrefaçon (Articles L. 615‑5 and L. 716‑7 CPI for patents and trademarks respectively), référé injunctive proceedings (Articles 834–835 CPC), and provisions implementing the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC).

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has exclusive jurisdiction over European patents with unitary effect and, unless the patent holder has registered an opt‑out, over classical European patents validated in UPC Contracting Member States. The UPC can grant pan‑European injunctive relief across all participating states in a single proceeding, making it a powerful forum for multi‑territory patent enforcement.

Key Legislative and Procedural Dates

Forum Choice for Cross‑Border IP Litigation in France: Decision Matrix

Forum selection is the single most consequential strategic decision in any cross‑border IP enforcement campaign. The choice between French national courts, the UPC and other EU courts involves trade‑offs across territorial scope, speed, cost, damages recovery and appeal risk. The decision matrix below captures the key variables.

When French Courts Are the Better Choice

French national courts offer distinct advantages in several common scenarios. Rights‑holders should favour forum selection in France when they need the fastest possible emergency relief, the référé procedure and saisie‑contrefaçon are among the most powerful and rapidly available emergency measures for intellectual property anywhere in Europe. France is also the preferred forum when the dispute involves non‑patent IP rights (trademarks, designs, copyright, trade secrets), which fall outside UPC jurisdiction entirely. Additionally, where the patent holder’s primary commercial interest is the French market, proceeding in French courts avoids the central revocation risk inherent in UPC proceedings.

When the UPC Is the Better Choice

The UPC becomes the strategic forum of choice when the rights‑holder needs a single injunction effective across multiple European markets simultaneously. For unitary patents, the UPC is the only available court. For classical European patents that have not been opted out, the UPC offers the efficiency of a single proceeding rather than parallel national litigation in France, Germany, the Netherlands and other target jurisdictions. Industry observers expect that as UPC case law matures through 2026 and beyond, the court’s procedural efficiency and cross‑border reach will make it increasingly attractive for multi‑jurisdiction patent disputes.

Mixed Strategies: Splitting Claims Across Forums

Sophisticated rights‑holders often adopt a mixed strategy, filing the patent infringement action at the UPC for pan‑European relief while simultaneously pursuing saisie‑contrefaçon in France for immediate evidence preservation. This is permissible because the saisie is a preservation measure, not a substantive action. Similarly, trademark and design infringement claims arising from the same infringing product can only be brought in national courts, creating natural parallel proceedings that complement UPC patent actions.

Emergency Measures in France: Cross‑Border Injunctions, Seizure and Expedited Trials

France’s emergency measures for intellectual property disputes are among the most effective in Europe. The combination of saisie‑contrefaçon, référé injunctions and expedited trial procedures gives rights‑holders a powerful toolkit for stopping infringement quickly and preserving the evidence needed for trial.

Saisie‑Contrefaçon: Evidence Seizure

The saisie‑contrefaçon is a uniquely French procedure that allows a rights‑holder to obtain a court order authorising a bailiff, accompanied by technical experts, to enter the suspected infringer’s premises and seize infringing goods, documents, manufacturing equipment and digital evidence. The procedure is governed by Article L. 615‑5 CPI (patents) and Article L. 716‑7 CPI (trademarks), with analogous provisions for designs and copyright.

1. Prepare the request. The applicant must present prima facie evidence of title (patent certificate, trademark registration) and reasonable grounds to suspect infringement. No proof of infringement is required at this stage.
2. Obtain the order. File the request with the presiding judge of the competent Tribunal Judiciaire. Orders are typically granted ex parte within 24–48 hours.
3. Execute the seizure. A bailiff executes the order, often accompanied by a patent attorney or technical expert who can identify infringing products and processes on site.
4. File the main action. The rights‑holder must initiate the substantive infringement proceeding within the deadline set by the court (typically 20 business days or 31 calendar days, depending on the IP right), failing which the saisie may be annulled.

Référé Proceedings: Interim Injunctions

The référé procedure under Articles 834–835 CPC allows a rights‑holder to obtain a provisional injunction ordering the defendant to cease infringing activity pending trial. The procedure is fast: hearings can be scheduled within days of filing, and the judge may issue a decision immediately or within a short deliberation period. The applicant must demonstrate urgency and the absence of a serious dispute on the merits (absence de contestation sérieuse) or, alternatively, the existence of imminent harm justifying a conservatory measure even where the merits are contested.

Courts may require the applicant to provide a security deposit (caution) to cover the defendant’s potential losses if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. The amount is set at the court’s discretion and depends on the commercial scale of the dispute.

Sample Emergency Timeline

• Day 0. Instruct French counsel; gather title documents and preliminary evidence of infringement.
• Day 1–2. File saisie‑contrefaçon request; obtain ex parte order.
• Day 2–5. Bailiff executes seizure at infringer’s premises; seized materials catalogued.
• Day 5–10. Review seized evidence; assess strength of case; prepare référé application if interim injunction is needed.
• Day 10–20. Référé hearing; provisional injunction issued.
• Day 20–31. File main infringement action to preserve validity of saisie.

Cross‑Border Enforcement Under Brussels I Recast and UPC Interplay

Obtaining a favorable judgment in France is only half the battle. For rights‑holders facing infringers who operate across multiple EU Member States, cross‑border enforcement is where strategy meets execution. The Brussels I Recast framework and the UPC Agreement provide complementary but distinct enforcement pathways.

Enforcing French National Court Judgments Across the EU

Under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, a judgment issued by a French court in a civil or commercial matter, including IP infringement, is recognised in other EU Member States without any special procedure. To enforce the judgment, the successful party must provide a certified copy of the judgment, a certificate issued under Article 53 of the Regulation, and, where necessary, a translation of the judgment into the language of the enforcement state. The key practical steps are:

1. Obtain the Article 53 certificate from the French court that issued the judgment. This standardised form confirms the judgment’s enforceability.
2. Serve the judgment on the defendant in the enforcement state using the procedures required by that state’s national law.
3. Apply for enforcement measures in the target jurisdiction. This may include seizure of assets, garnishment of accounts or compulsory compliance orders.
4. Respond to any challenge. The defendant may apply for refusal of recognition on limited grounds, principally public policy (Article 45(1)(a)) or failure to serve the initiating document in time (Article 45(1)(b)). These challenges are rarely successful but must be anticipated.

Enforcing UPC Orders in France and Across Contracting States

Decisions of the UPC are enforceable in any Contracting Member State under the UPC Agreement. In France, UPC judgments are enforced in accordance with the national enforcement rules, meaning a UPC injunction can be executed through the same bailiff‑led mechanisms used for domestic judgments. The practical advantage of UPC orders is that a single decision can be enforced simultaneously across all Contracting States without the need for separate recognition proceedings in each jurisdiction. The likely practical effect is that enforcement timelines for UPC orders in France will track closely with those for domestic judgments, though practitioners should anticipate some procedural learning curve as French enforcement authorities build familiarity with UPC‑issued orders.

Enforcement Against Online Intermediaries

Where infringing goods are sold through online platforms, rights‑holders can leverage French court orders, and increasingly UPC orders, to compel intermediaries to block or remove infringing listings. French courts have been willing to issue injunctions directed at internet service providers and marketplace operators under Article L. 336‑2 CPI and the EU E‑Commerce Directive framework. Cross‑border injunctions obtained in France may also be enforced against platform operators established in other EU states via Brussels I Recast recognition.

Jurisdictional Pitfalls to Avoid

• Lis pendens conflicts. If the same dispute is pending before both a national court and the UPC, the court second seised must stay proceedings. Coordinate filing strategy to avoid inadvertent stays.
• Opt‑out status. Always verify whether the patent in suit has been opted out of UPC jurisdiction before filing. Filing at the UPC for an opted‑out patent will result in the action being declared inadmissible.
• Non‑EU enforcement. The Brussels I Recast does not apply to enforcement outside the EU. For cross‑border IP disputes extending to non‑EU territories, separate enforcement proceedings based on bilateral treaties or national law will be necessary.

Evidence Preservation, Disclosure and Coordination Across Jurisdictions

Evidence is the foundation of any successful IP enforcement campaign. In cross‑border disputes, the challenge is securing and preserving evidence across multiple jurisdictions before it can be destroyed, concealed or moved. France’s procedural tools offer rights‑holders a significant head start.

Using Saisie‑Contrefaçon as a Strategic Preservation Tool

The saisie‑contrefaçon is not merely an evidence‑gathering mechanism, it is a strategic lever. The surprise element of an ex parte seizure means the defendant has no advance notice, ensuring that manufacturing records, import documentation, digital communications and physical product samples can be secured in their original state. For cross‑border disputes, a saisie conducted in France can yield evidence of infringing activity in multiple countries, supply chain documents, for instance, may reveal distribution networks extending across the EU.

Coordinating With Foreign Counsel

Rights‑holders pursuing parallel enforcement in multiple jurisdictions must coordinate evidence preservation across borders. Key considerations include:

• Sequencing. Conduct the French saisie before notifying the defendant through proceedings in other jurisdictions. Once alerted, an infringer may move to destroy evidence in non‑French locations.
• Disclosure obligations. French procedure does not include US‑style broad discovery, but the saisie and court‑ordered production of documents (Article 145 CPC) can achieve equivalent results for targeted evidence categories.
• Digital evidence. Server data, email records and platform analytics increasingly form the core of cross‑border IP cases. French courts have ordered the preservation of digital evidence stored on cloud servers located outside France where the data is accessible from French territory.
• Privilege and confidentiality. Coordinate with counsel in each jurisdiction to ensure that privilege claims over communications are respected and that seized evidence is not inadvertently disclosed in ways that could waive privilege under another country’s rules.

Cost, Remedy Selection and Damages: Patent Litigation Strategy in France

France offers a damages framework that, while not as generous as US‑style treble damages, provides meaningful compensation and an increasingly sophisticated range of remedies. Selecting the right remedy mix is a core element of cross-border IP litigation strategy.

Injunctive relief remains the primary remedy sought by most rights‑holders. A permanent injunction is available upon a finding of infringement and can be backed by a daily penalty payment (astreinte) to compel compliance. Recall and destruction of infringing goods may be ordered under Article L. 615‑7‑1 CPI. Damages are calculated using one of three methods: the rights‑holder’s actual lost profits, the infringer’s profits attributable to the infringement, or a reasonable royalty. The court selects the method most favourable to the claimant based on available evidence.

When Damages Alone Are Sufficient

In some cross‑border scenarios, a rights‑holder may conclude that an injunction is impractical, for example, where the infringer has already exited the French market. In such cases, a damages‑only strategy focused on recovering the economic harm caused by past infringement may be more efficient. French courts can order provisional accounting measures to quantify damages, and the saisie evidence will often reveal the full scale of the infringer’s commercial activity. Industry observers expect that as French courts continue to refine damages methodologies, particularly for complex multi‑territory infringements, France will become increasingly attractive as a venue for damages‑focused litigation.

Practical Examples and 2026 Trends in Cross‑Border IP Enforcement

Hypothetical example 1: UPC‑adjacent patent split strategy. A European pharmaceutical company holds a classical European patent validated in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Facing a generic manufacturer launching in all three markets, the company opts out the French validation from the UPC and files the French infringement action in the Paris Tribunal Judiciaire, securing a saisie‑contrefaçon and référé injunction within two weeks, while pursuing the German and Dutch validations at the UPC for a single pan‑European injunction. This split approach preserves the speed advantages of French procedure while leveraging the UPC’s territorial breadth for other markets.

Hypothetical example 2: Trademark cross‑border seizure. A luxury goods brand discovers counterfeit products being imported through French ports for distribution across the EU. The brand obtains a saisie‑contrefaçon at the port, secures a référé injunction in Paris, and uses the Brussels I Recast framework to enforce the French injunction against distributors in Italy and Spain, effectively shutting down the distribution network through a single French‑anchored enforcement campaign.

Early indications suggest that 2026 is proving to be a pivotal year: UPC filing volumes have increased substantially, French courts are processing cross‑border injunctions with growing efficiency, and practitioners are increasingly sophisticated in combining national and UPC strategies to maximise enforcement coverage.

Conclusion: A Strategic Framework for Cross‑Border IP Litigation in France

Cross-border IP litigation in France in 2026 demands a structured, multi‑forum strategy. Rights‑holders should begin with evidence preservation, leveraging the unmatched speed of French saisie‑contrefaçon, before making a considered forum choice between French national courts and the UPC based on the IP right at issue, the territorial scope of the infringement, and the risk profile of each forum. Enforcement planning must start at the outset, not after judgment, with Brussels I Recast recognition mechanisms and UPC enforcement pathways mapped to every jurisdiction where the infringer operates. France’s combination of rapid emergency measures, specialist judicial expertise and efficient cross‑border enforcement makes it an indispensable venue for any serious EU‑wide IP enforcement campaign.

For rights‑holders seeking experienced counsel, the Global Law Experts lawyer directory provides access to vetted IP litigation specialists across France and beyond.

Sources

1. Legifrance, French Code of Intellectual Property and Code of Civil Procedure
2. European Commission, Brussels I Recast (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012)
3. Unified Patent Court (Official)
4. Cour de cassation (France)
5. Chambers & Partners, Cross‑Border Disputes France
6. Gide Loyrette Nouel, Intellectual Property Practice
7. IP STARS, France Rankings
8. European Court of Justice (CURIA)