ECJ blocks cross-border patent litigation
IP owners' hopes of litigating pan-European patent disputes in one EU member state were dashed last week after the European Court of Justice ruled that cross-border injunctions are not available in patent infringement cases.
In two eagerly awaited decisions, GAT v LuK and Roche v Primus, handed down on Thursday, the judges of the ECJ said that European patents are national rights that must be enforced nationally. "From a legal perspective, I think the Court made very wise and consistent decisions, but it will be bad for industry because companies will have to litigate [in each member state] separately," said Bruno Vandermeulen of Bird & Bird's Brussels office.
He added that this may increase litigation costs: "As of now, cross-border litigation is totally excluded so companies need to sustain higher costs to enforce their patents in more countries."
Lawyers are predicting that the rulings may boost support for the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), a draft proposal that foresees an integrated judicial system for patents and a central patent court for those EU member states that sign up to it. Supporters of the EPLA claim that it would reduce costs for litigants. "Some courts [frustrated by the existing system] effectively started grabbing more jurisdiction. Now the ECJ has said in the clearest terms that you can't do it. If you are going to litigate infringement and validity, it has to be done in the state where the IP is registered," said Kevin Mooney of Simmons & Simmons.
"The rulings may encourage industry, the European Commission and the Parliament that the EPLA is the way forward. It is the only show in town," said Mooney.
In the GAT v LuK case, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik offered to supply auto parts to Ford in Germany. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG claimed that the products infringed its German and French patents. GAT then asked the Regional Court in Düsseldorf for a declaration of non-infringement.
Düsseldorf's higher regional court asked the ECJ whether it could determine if the patents had been the infringed, and whether the invalidity claim affected its ability to do so. In particular, it asked the Court to clarify how Article 16.4 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 22.4 of the Brussels Regulation) should be applied. In general, European law says that the court where the defendant is based has jurisdiction, but Article 16.4 gives the court in the country where a patent is registered exclusive jurisdiction "in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of" registered IP rights.
In September last year, the Advocate General issued an Opinion saying that if an invalidity defence is raised during infringement proceedings, the court may: refer the whole case to the jurisdiction where the patent is registered; adjourn its decision; or review the matter if the defendant had acted in bad faith.
But now the ECJ has made it clear that the courts in the country where the IP is registered have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where the validity of a patent is in question. The judges said: "Article 16(4).....is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection."
The Roche case dates back to 1997 when Primus and Goldenberg, both based in the US, launched a patent infringement suit in The Hague against Roche in the Netherlands and eight subsidiaries of the Roche group based in the US, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands asked the ECJ whether Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention allowed owners of European patents to launch an infringement action against various foreign defendants in one court or whether they have to litigate in each national court separately. Under Article 6(1), in a case where several defendants are sued, the competent court is the one in the country of domicile of any of the defendants.
On Thursday, the ECJ backed an opinion issued by Advocate General Philippe Léger in December who said it was "unavoidable" that infringements of the same European patent have to be litigated in each relevant national court, even if the lawsuit is against the same group of companies based in different contracting states.
The ruling will end the so-called spider in the web approach – a limited cross-border injunction action, which patent owners have been using for almost 10 years.
The judges said that Article 6(1) "must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them."
Although the ECJ has put an end to the possibility of bringing an infringement suit in one EU member state that would have effect in another, patent owners will still choose carefully in which jurisdiction to bring their first patent infringement action, based on the likely time and expense of obtaining a decision and the importance of the market to their business.
"Forum shopping will not go away entirely," said Reinhardt Schuster of Bardehle Pagenberg.
"Patent owners will still make choices. That's human and reasonable."
In two eagerly awaited decisions, GAT v LuK and Roche v Primus, handed down on Thursday, the judges of the ECJ said that European patents are national rights that must be enforced nationally. "From a legal perspective, I think the Court made very wise and consistent decisions, but it will be bad for industry because companies will have to litigate [in each member state] separately," said Bruno Vandermeulen of Bird & Bird's Brussels office.
He added that this may increase litigation costs: "As of now, cross-border litigation is totally excluded so companies need to sustain higher costs to enforce their patents in more countries."
Lawyers are predicting that the rulings may boost support for the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), a draft proposal that foresees an integrated judicial system for patents and a central patent court for those EU member states that sign up to it. Supporters of the EPLA claim that it would reduce costs for litigants. "Some courts [frustrated by the existing system] effectively started grabbing more jurisdiction. Now the ECJ has said in the clearest terms that you can't do it. If you are going to litigate infringement and validity, it has to be done in the state where the IP is registered," said Kevin Mooney of Simmons & Simmons.
"The rulings may encourage industry, the European Commission and the Parliament that the EPLA is the way forward. It is the only show in town," said Mooney.
In the GAT v LuK case, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik offered to supply auto parts to Ford in Germany. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG claimed that the products infringed its German and French patents. GAT then asked the Regional Court in Düsseldorf for a declaration of non-infringement.
Düsseldorf's higher regional court asked the ECJ whether it could determine if the patents had been the infringed, and whether the invalidity claim affected its ability to do so. In particular, it asked the Court to clarify how Article 16.4 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 22.4 of the Brussels Regulation) should be applied. In general, European law says that the court where the defendant is based has jurisdiction, but Article 16.4 gives the court in the country where a patent is registered exclusive jurisdiction "in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of" registered IP rights.
In September last year, the Advocate General issued an Opinion saying that if an invalidity defence is raised during infringement proceedings, the court may: refer the whole case to the jurisdiction where the patent is registered; adjourn its decision; or review the matter if the defendant had acted in bad faith.
But now the ECJ has made it clear that the courts in the country where the IP is registered have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where the validity of a patent is in question. The judges said: "Article 16(4).....is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection."
The Roche case dates back to 1997 when Primus and Goldenberg, both based in the US, launched a patent infringement suit in The Hague against Roche in the Netherlands and eight subsidiaries of the Roche group based in the US, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands asked the ECJ whether Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention allowed owners of European patents to launch an infringement action against various foreign defendants in one court or whether they have to litigate in each national court separately. Under Article 6(1), in a case where several defendants are sued, the competent court is the one in the country of domicile of any of the defendants.
On Thursday, the ECJ backed an opinion issued by Advocate General Philippe Léger in December who said it was "unavoidable" that infringements of the same European patent have to be litigated in each relevant national court, even if the lawsuit is against the same group of companies based in different contracting states.
The ruling will end the so-called spider in the web approach – a limited cross-border injunction action, which patent owners have been using for almost 10 years.
The judges said that Article 6(1) "must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them."
Although the ECJ has put an end to the possibility of bringing an infringement suit in one EU member state that would have effect in another, patent owners will still choose carefully in which jurisdiction to bring their first patent infringement action, based on the likely time and expense of obtaining a decision and the importance of the market to their business.
"Forum shopping will not go away entirely," said Reinhardt Schuster of Bardehle Pagenberg.
"Patent owners will still make choices. That's human and reasonable."
posted by Alain Biron at 16:07
0 Comments:
Postar um comentário
<< Home