CJEU Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Patent Infringement Cases

in

On February 25, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a pivotal judgment in Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB, addressing the scope of jurisdiction in cross-border patent infringement disputes within the EU.​

Background

The case originated from a dispute between BSH Hausgeräte GmbH and Electrolux AB concerning alleged infringements of a European patent validated in multiple Member States. BSH initiated proceedings in Sweden, seeking remedies for infringements occurring in various countries. Electrolux contested the jurisdiction of the Swedish court, arguing that challenges to the patent’s validity should be exclusively addressed by courts in the respective countries where the patent was validated.​

CJEU’s Ruling

The CJEU held that, under Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), a national court has jurisdiction to hear an infringement action against a defendant domiciled in its member state, even if the action pertains to infringements in other member states. Importantly, the Court clarified that raising the invalidity of a patent as a defense does not negate this jurisdiction, provided that the court does not make determinations affecting the registration or validity of the patent in other member states.​

Implications

This decision marks a departure from the Court’s earlier stance in the GAT v. LuK case (C-4/03), which limited the jurisdiction of national courts in cross-border patent disputes. By affirming the ability of national courts to adjudicate on infringement matters involving patents validated in multiple member states, the ruling enhances the enforcement capabilities of patent holders and may lead to increased cross-border litigation within the EU.​

Legal practitioners and patent holders should consider this development when formulating litigation strategies, as it offers a broader framework for addressing cross-border infringements within the EU’s legal landscape.​

🔗 Read the full judgment here: www.eur-lex.europa.eu