---

CJEU patent ruling ‘pivotal moment’ – Eversheds

Lawyers at Eversheds Sutherland have described a recent ruling by the EU’s Court of Justice (CJEU) as marking “a pivotal moment” in European patent litigation.

They say that the decision allows EU courts to adjudicate infringement disputes involving non-EU patents on an inter partes (between the parties involved) basis.

The case originated in Sweden, where BSH sued Electrolux for patent infringement concerning vacuum cleaners.

The contested patent was validated not only in Sweden, but across multiple EU jurisdictions, as well as in other states such as Britain and Turkey.

Electrolux challenged the Swedish court’s jurisdiction, citing article 24(4) of the Brussels I Regulation, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the state in which a patent was granted for matters concerning its validity.

Electrolux argued that its counterclaim for invalidity deprived the Swedish court of jurisdiction over the entire case.

CJEU referral

The Swedish court agreed and dismissed the infringement claim.

BSH appealed, leading to a referral to the CJEU to clarify the extent of EU courts' jurisdiction over patents granted in other EU states and third countries.

The CJEU found, however, that EU courts retained jurisdiction over infringement disputes involving patents granted in other EU states, even when a defendant raises validity objections.

The Eversheds Sutherland lawyers note, however, that the actual determination of a patent’s validity remains the exclusive jurisdiction of the granting state.

The CJEU also held that article 24(4) does not apply to patents granted by non-EU states.

As a result, EU courts can assess the validity of third-state patents as part of infringement proceedings, though any findings will be limited to the parties involved and will not affect the official patent register of the granting state.

Landscape ‘significantly altered’

Eversheds Sutherland adds that the decision confirms that EU courts have jurisdiction over cross-border infringement disputes, reinforcing the ability of courts to hear cases involving non-EU patents under certain conditions.

The firm’s lawyers say that the BSH ruling “significantly alters” the jurisdictional landscape for European patent litigation.

“Previously, the mere assertion of an invalidity counterclaim could force EU courts to relinquish jurisdiction. This ruling prevents such procedural tactics, ensuring that infringement proceedings can continue even when validity is contested,” they state.

The lawyers add that the ruling also raises questions about how far European courts might extend their reach – including over patents granted in the US or other jurisdictions.

Eversheds Sutherland notes that two local divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) have already applied the CJEU ruling in recent decisions.