UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Matthew Howell, Jamie Rowlands, Greg Ward and James Ward, Haseltine Lake Kempner
The CJEU decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB As the UPC must apply EU law in its entirety, decisions of the CJEU should be followed by the UPC. The CJEU’s 25 February 2025 decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB ( C 339/22) is of particular relevance to the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction. This decision addresses questions regarding jurisdiction in cross-border patent infringement disputes. The German company BSH sued the Swed - ish company Electrolux, in Sweden, for alleged infringement of all the national parts of European patent EP1434512, which had been validated as national patents in several EU countries (Germa - ny, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden), the UK and Türkiye. Electrolux contested the validity of the pat - ent, and invoked Article 24 (4) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation to challenge the Swed - ish court’s jurisdiction over the claims relating to infringement outside of Sweden. Electrolux argued that, because of its invalidity conten - tions, the infringement action must be regarded as a dispute concerned with the validity of pat - ents. As such, under Article 24 (4), the national courts of the states in which the European pat - ent had been validated had exclusive jurisdic - tion for the infringement claims, meaning that the Swedish court could not rule on the infringe - ment of the non-Swedish national patents. BSH would therefore have to bring separate infringe - ment actions before the national courts of the countries in which the European patent had been validated. The Swedish court found in Electrolux’s favour at first instance, which led to an appeal by BSH
to the Swedish Court of Appeal, in which BSH argued that Article 24 (4) is not applicable to “pure” patent infringement actions. BSH there - fore argued that a court that has jurisdiction under Article 4 (1) on the basis of the defendant’s domicile may hear an action alleging infringe - ment of a foreign patent even if it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the validity of such a patent. BSH additionally argued that Article 4 (1) grants the Swedish court jurisdiction over an action alleging infringement of a foreign patent that had not been granted or validated in an EU member state, in this case the Turkish national patent. Following a referral from the Swedish Court of Appeal, the CJEU decided as follows: “A court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant which is seised, pursuant to Article 4 (1) of [the Brussels I Recast Regulation], of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, does still have juris - diction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent, whereas the courts of that other Member State have exclu - sive jurisdiction to rule on that validity”. In the decision, the CJEU affirmed the earlier (February 2024) opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU that this interpretation of Article 24 (4) allows the proprietor of a European patent to concentrate claims relating to infringement of the patent in several EU member states, and to obtain compensation in a single forum, avoiding
the risk of divergent decisions. The CJEU further ruled that:
“Under the general rule laid down in Article 4 (1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the courts of the
142 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook