{"id":38642,"date":"2025-02-28T15:01:53","date_gmt":"2025-02-28T14:01:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/?p=38642"},"modified":"2025-02-28T15:15:20","modified_gmt":"2025-02-28T14:15:20","slug":"ruling-c-339-22-cjeu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/ruling-c-339-22-cjeu\/","title":{"rendered":"Landmark ruling of CJEU with significant impact on european patent litigation strategies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, the CJEU has issued its long-awaited ruling in the matter of BSH vs Electrolux<\/em>\u00a0(CJEU, judgement of February 25, 2025, C-339\/22), thereby significantly expanding the possibilities for both the UPC and national courts in the EU Member-States to grant cross-border injunctions and decide on matters of patent infringement in countries outside the respective court’s own territory.<\/p>\n

In its final and non-appealable ruling, the CJEU responded to several questions on the interpretation of the Brussels I-bis Regulation (“BR”). These were raised by a Swedish Court when confronted with BSH’s request to decide on the alleged infringement by Electrolux\u00a0of all national parts of its European bundle patent, including in a non-EU state. The Swedish court was principally tasked to render a decision on these requests, considering Electrolux is a Swedish company and that Art. 4 (1) BR grants the courts of the EU-Member States general jurisdiction over all infringing acts committed by a person or company domiciled in their respective territory (irrespective of where the act occurs).<\/p>\n

However, Art. 24 (4) BR limits such jurisdiction for cases concerning\u00a0the “validity of patents”. So far,\u00a0and following a number of earlier CJEU rulings (in particular: Roche v. Primus<\/em>, Solvay v. Honeywell<\/em>\u00a0and GAT\u00a0v.\u00a0LUK), <\/em>this limitation had been understood to apply as soon as a validity challenge had been brought by a defendant in any of the foreign countries concerned. As this challenge is generally available to any defendant, the above understanding and corresponding court practice led most patent owners in the past years to limit their litigation at a national court in the EU (or now also at the UPC) to infringing acts having occurred in the actual territory of the respective court.<\/p>\n

The CJEU has now clarified the scope of Art. 24 (4) BR in relation to patent infringement cases. In the view of the CJEU, the “validity of patents” mentioned in Art. 24 (4) BR only concerns validity challenges that would lead to an erga omnes<\/em>\u00a0nullification of the attacked patent. These challenges still need to be brought in the courts of the patent concerned, e.g. at the Bundespatentgericht <\/em>in case of a German validation of an EP. \u00a0In view of the CJEU, Art. 24 (4) BR does not however apply to an inter partes<\/em>\u00a0validity defense raised against a patent infringement claim.\u00a0Consequently, even if an invalidity challenge was brought in a foreign country, Art. 4 (1) BR would still allow the court of the EU Member-State in which the infringement case has been brought to rule on the infringement in such foreign country, by assessing and taking into account the validity challenge in the foreign country for its inter partes<\/em>\u00a0decision.<\/p>\n

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for global patent litigation and corresponding strategies, only some of which are:<\/p>\n