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 27 November 2012, the Honourable Mr Justice Arnold surprised the European patent community with an unprecedented decision (Actavis Group HF and Eli Lilly & Company; Medis EHF and Eli Lilly & Company) where an English Court accepted jurisdiction to decide a declaratory non-infringement action relating to the UK, German, French, Italian and Spanish part…
The CJEU decided yesterday that a negative declaratory action seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict does fall within the scope of the “place of tort” pursuant to Article 5 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (“Brussels Regulation” or BR), case 133/07. This question has long been in dispute,…
One of the remedies available to intellectual property owners introduced by what is known as the Enforcement Directive was the publication of the judgment where infringement is declared. This remedy was already foreseen in article 63 of the 1986 Spanish Patents Act, which includes among the remedies available to the patent owner, inter alia, “the…
The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…
On 27 September 2012, a new consolidated version of the Draft Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (Document 14268/12) was (finally) published. The consolidated text includes some of the amendments agreed upon on 5 December 2011 as well as on the 29/30 June 2012 EU Council summit, and also presents further amendments and quite a…
In the wake of the UPC Agreement having been entered into under the Danish presidency, there was widespread euphoria about the many, potentially positive, aspects of Danish SME litigants being able to save substantial costs under the envisaged UPC regime. The Danish press abounded in positive reviews put forward by politicians and industry representatives alike,…
The Court decided it has jurisdiction in preliminary proceedings in respect of the alleged unlawful act by a Dutch company, consisting of facilitating – as the holder of a marketing authorization – its Portuguese fellow subsidiary to infringe the Portuguese part of a European patent and corresponding SPC in Portugal, based on Article 31 EC…
The Court of Justice ruled that claims against different companies located in different Member States marketing the same product regarding infringement of a a European patent in one jurisdiction were so closely connected that they may be decided jointly to prevent irreconcilable judgments in the sense of Art. 6(1) EC 44/2001. In the present circumstances,…
Jurisdiction of Article 6 (1) BR against Co-Defendants [each infringing all national parts of EP] affirmed;
Jurisdiction according to Art. 31 BR affirmed for cross-border provisional injunctions despite nullity pleas
The Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf decided on 26 April 2012 (docket I-2 U 18/12) that the admissibility (under Article 27 BR) of exclusive licensee’s patent infringement action despite pending NDA proceedings against patentee in another Member State depends on whether the declaratory judgment will have the force of res judicata against licensee. This must be…
