logo_curia
Image by ELZABURU
ELZABURU

Strengthening the procedural possibilities of action of the owners of European patents under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

We have met by our good friend Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella that the CJEU in a ruling of July 12, 2012 issued in response to a request for a preliminary ruling filed by the Dutch courts in the context of an action for infringement of a European patent against several defendants (Case C-616/10), has clarified the scope of arts. 6.1, 22.4 and 31 of the Regulation no. 44/2001 relating to judicial jurisdiction in the recognition and execution of judicial resolutions in civil and commercial matters.
There are two aspects of this ruling that deserve to be highlighted:

First, the CJEU admits the application of the special jurisdiction rule provided for in art. 6.1 of Regulation No. 44/2001 versus the general jurisdiction rule relating to the forum corresponding to the defendant's domicile. For the CJEU, the fact that in accordance with art. 64 of the CPE actions for violation of the European patent must be prosecuted in accordance with national regulations, this does not prevent the national judge from understanding that there is a connecting link between the different lawsuits presented before him for the purposes of coming into play. of art. 6.1 of the aforementioned Community Regulation.
Second, the CJEU confirms that in the context of an action for infringement of a European patent in which the invalidity of the aforementioned patent is incidentally raised as an exception to the adoption of a precautionary/provisional measure, art. 22.4 of EC Regulation No. 44/2001 (relating to substantive jurisdiction) will not be an obstacle to the entry into play of art. 31 of the aforementioned Regulation (relating to incidental judicial jurisdiction). The CJEU corroborates that both provisions regulate different situations and have different scopes of application. The CJEU admits, in any case, that the judge who is incidentally aware of the matter may refuse to adopt the provisional/precautionary measure if he considers that there is a reasonable possibility that the patent basis of the action will eventually be annulled by the competent court.
Share post →

Maybe you might be interested ...