Factual background
On 25 February, the CJEU delivered its long-awaited judgment in the cross-border infringement case BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (“BSH”) v Electrolux AB (“Electrolux”) (C-339/22).
The German company BSH brought the Swedish company Electrolux before the Swedish court claiming infringement of all the national portions of its European patent EP1434512 (“EP’512”), which protects an invention in the field of vacuum cleaners.
EP’512 was validated in multiple EU member states, including Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy, and in non-EU member states, including Turkey and the UK.
Electrolux challenged EP’512’s validity and argued that, consequently, the Swedish court had no jurisdiction to hear BSH’s infringement claims concerning the non-Swedish portions of the patent. The Swedish court of first instance upheld Electrolux’s position.
BSH appealed, and the Swedish court of appeal referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the interplay between Arts. 4.1 and 24.4 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (“Brussels I bis Regulation”). The question put to the CJEU was whether, under Art. 24.4, a national court with jurisdiction under Art. 4.1 to hear infringement actions against a person or company domiciled in their territory, regardless of the place of infringement, loses jurisdiction when an invalidity defence is raised.
Read the full article here.
