ECJ on Interpretation of Art. 16 of the Brussels Convention.
On July 13, 2006, the ECJ has decided yet another interesting Case C-4/03 which, however, appears to be closely related to Case C-539/03:
"[...] GAT and LuK, companies established in Germany, are economic operators competing in the field of motor vehicle technology.
GAT made an offer to a motor vehicle manufacturer, also established in Germany, with a view to winning a contract to supply mechanical damper springs. LuK alleged that the spring which was the subject of GAT's proposal infringed two French patents of which LuK was the proprietor.
GAT brought a declaratory action before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court Düsseldorf) to establish that it was not in breach of the patents, maintaining that its products did not infringe the rights under the French patents owned by LuK and further, that those patents were either void or invalid.
The Landgericht Düsseldorf considered that it had international jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the action relating to the alleged infringement of the rights deriving from the French patents. It considered that it also had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the plea as to the alleged nullity of those patents. The Landgericht dismissed the action brought by GAT, holding that the patents at issue satisfied the requirements of patentability.
On appeal by GAT, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
'Should Article 16(4) of the Convention ... be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by that provision on the courts of the Contracting State in which the deposit or registration of a patent has been applied for, has taken place or is deemed to have taken place under the terms of an international convention only applies if proceedings (with erga omnes effect) are brought to declare the patent invalid or are proceedings concerned with the validity of patents within the meaning of the aforementioned provision where the defendant in a patent infringement action or the claimant in a declaratory action to establish that a patent is not infringed pleads that the patent is invalid or void and that there is also no patent infringement for that reason, irrespective of whether the court seised of the proceedings considers the plea in objection to be substantiated or unsubstantiated and of when the plea in objection is raised in the course of proceedings?' [...]"
The ECJ's answer is:
"[...] Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, 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. [...]"
"[...] Plans for a unified European patent court have received a major boost, with the European Commission (EC) effectively giving the green light to proposals it has opposed for almost a decade. [...]
In a related move, on 13 July the European Court of Justice handed down two judgments, ruling that cross-border injunctions are not available in patent infringement cases.
The court's decisions in the cases of GAT v LuK and Roche v Primus were central to the debate, and could potentially have negated the point of all further discussions on the community patent if the judges had ruled that the existing system allowed one state's court to enforce decisions beyond its borders. [...]"
Surely both ECJ decisions will give the EPLA a further boost because of it is clear that currently there is no way for effective dealing with infringement cases covering multiple countries.
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
Case C-4/03 which, however, appears to be closely related to 
Case C-539/03: 
