Cross-border jurisdiction means that a national court accepts jurisdiction to grant measures which have effect outside its national jurisdiction, i.e. other states than the state of this national court. In cross-border patent litigation a court may for example grant an injunction against patent infringement in another state
On 15 July 2024, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its decision ([2024] EWHC 1815 (Ch)) in the jurisdiction challenge in Telsa’s case against InterDigital and Avanci which considers a request for declaratory relief in relation to the FRAND terms for a patent pool licence that includes SEPs owned by multiple proprietors. …
Following up on Thorsten’s blog post yesterday, I report on the second day of the Oxviews 9th Intellectual Property and Competition Forum, which took place in the Justizpalast in Munich on 19 June. This impressive building deserves the name Palast (in English “Palace”), and was a fitting venue for this meeting of thought leaders in…
Opt-outs are dealt with in Part IV of the UPC Agreement entitled “Transitional Provisions”. The prevailing view is that these provisions should be interpreted to mean that an opted-out patent is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC and the opt out shall remain in place for the lifetime of the patent. Furthermore,…
In the present preliminary case a cross-border injunction was ordered by the provisions judge. He came to this conclusion because he found the product to be infringing (in contrast to a preliminary decision of the Greek court) and he found that the Dutch-based Pharmathen company was controlling the other companies in the group. Case date: 19…
Everything flows, and the Dutch cross-border injunction flows like no other. From its source in the The Hague all the way to the cradle of Europe: Greece. So decided the Dutch Courts in the Novartis vs. Pharmathen case. The willingness of the Dutch Courts to assume jurisdiction to grant cross-border relief in international patent cases…
I won’t go into the numerous litigations involving OPPO around the world, nor will I comment on the decisions rendered by the German Courts since this summer. What interests me is the unprecedented attitude of OPPO in these proceedings – which withdrew its products from the German market even before any injunction was enforced –,…
The news was announced last week: Moderna is suing Pfizer for infringement of two of its patents related to Covid-19 vaccines. These highly targeted actions are likely to spread to many other countries: here is a brief overview of the case and its potential French perspective. In a press release dated August 26, 2022, Moderna…
In a decision dated June 29, 2022, the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) overturned the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (Paris, November 24, 2020) which refused to assess acts of infringement committed abroad. The decision of the Supreme Court, which merely applies classical rules of private international law, leads one to wonder…
In two recent decisions the District Court of The Hague assumed cross-border jurisdiction in FRAND / Standard Essential Patent (‘SEP’) proceedings. In a first case the Court assumed jurisdiction on claims related to the FRANDness of a SEPs (patent pool) license. In a second case the Court assumed jurisdiction on an anti-anti-suit injunction (‘AASI’) claim…
This short post reports on one of the Panel Sessions at this year’s AIPPI Congress which took place virtually for the second year in a row. The tenth panel session of the AIPPI Online World Congress 2021 addressed global FRAND determinations by national courts and out-of-jurisdiction judgments in the form of anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions….
