On 25 February 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a landmark ruling in the case BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux (C-339/23), establishing two fundamental principles regarding the jurisdiction of European Union courts in patent infringement and validity actions.
1. Jurisdiction in actions for infringement of patents granted in a Member State other than that of the court seised
The first principle established by the Court concerns the causes of infringement of patents granted by a Member State other than that of the court seised and concerns the interpretation of Article 24, point 4, of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, in relation to exclusive jurisdiction for causes relating to the registration or validity of patents.
The Court ruled that the article in question must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an application for infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, Member State judge of the defendant's domicile, said judge stay competent although the defendant contests the validity of the patent through a nullity exception, without prejudice to the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on such validity which belongs to the judge of the Member State in which the patent was granted.
2. Jurisdiction for patents granted in third countries
Secondly, the Court clarified that, if a judge of a Member State is invested, as the court of the defendant's domicile pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of an action for infringement of a patent granted or validated in a third State and the validity of that patent is contested by means of an exception of invalidity, the European judge has jurisdiction to examine that exception, since its decision does not affect the existence or content of the patent in that third State, nor does it modify the national register of the latter.
The decision will have a significant impact on the strategy to be adopted in patent litigation and was also expected by some local UPC courts.
