Case note under BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux
Introduction
1. The BSH v. Electrolux case concerns the relationship between Articles 4(1) and 24(4) of Brussels I bis. Article 4(1) contains the main rule of international jurisdiction law for cases falling within the material scope of Brussels I bis: the court of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled has international jurisdiction. It follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) in the Owusu case that this court does not have the freedom not to exercise this jurisdiction on the grounds that the court of a third country would be a more appropriate forum to hear the dispute in question. In short: there is no scope for applying the forum non conveniens doctrine.
2. According to Article 24(4) of Brussels I bis, the courts of the Member State for which a European patent has been granted have exclusive jurisdiction over the registration or validity of that patent, regardless of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection. The fact that this exclusive jurisdiction applies under this provision, regardless of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection, codifies the interpretation given by the Court to Article 16(4) of the EEX Convention in its judgment in GAT v. LuK.
The entire case note can be read here.
This case note was published earlier in Dutch in Intellectuele Eigendom & Reclamerecht (IER) 2025/31, edition 4, September 2025, p. 314-331
