The Court of Venice, in the dispute between Geoplast Spa, on one side, and Daliform Group Srl and TPS Srl, on the other, concerning the alleged infringement of the EP 1605113, focused its attention on the interpretation of the jurisdiction and the ‘opt-out’ rule, pursuant to Article 83 (1), (3) and (4) UPCA
The clamorous outcome is the following:
- Jurisdiction over disputes relating to European patents without unitary effect lies exclusively with the Unified Patent Court (UPC), pursuant to Article 32 UPCA.
- During the transitional period, the option to bring proceedings before a national court is available only if the patent holder has formally exercised the ‘opt-out’ i.e., has waived the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC.
- Therefore, if the ‘opt-out’ is not exercised, jurisdiction remains exclusively with the UPC. Therefore, the patent holder has no right to choose between the national court and the UPC.
- The national court, when seized of a dispute for which the UPC has exclusive jurisdiction, is required to declare its lack of jurisdiction of its own motion, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 and the Lugano Convention.
This interpretation, which appears to conflict with the literal wording of Article 83(1) UPCA and the prevailing interpretation of the provision in question, which has been accepted to date, could, if shared by other courts, lead to a significant increase in disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the UPC.
A copy of the decision in Italian can be read here.
A copy of the decision in English (machine translation) can be read here.
