Essity Operations France SAS v. M.T.S. Euro Products B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 16 October 2024, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:17019
Essity holds EP 1 799 083 B1 entitled: ‘Toilet paper dispenser housing a roll, toilet paper roll and dispenser’ and divisional EP 3 260 029 B 1 entitled ‘Toilet paper roll’
Essity alleges that MTS directly and indirectly infringes its patents and succesfully obtains a provisional cross-border injunction.
The court states that it has international jurisdiction to hear the claims in the main proceedings in convention on the basis of Article 4 Brussels I bis Regulation, because MTS is established in the Netherlands. The jurisdiction of the court also extends to taking cross-border measures.
“MTS rightly points out, however, that on the basis of the aforementioned Article 24, opening words and under 4 Brussels I bis Regulation, courts other than the Dutch court have exclusive jurisdiction to give a judgment on the invalidity defences of MTS with regard to the foreign parts of EP 083 and EP 029. However, this does not lead to the court’s lack of jurisdiction with regard to the infringement claims insofar as they are also based on infringement of the foreign parts of those patents or on a common unlawful act, as MTS seems to primarily argue. Now that Essity has requested a stay, the court – if the other defences of MTS against the alleged infringements fail – is obliged to stay the assessment of the alleged patent infringements on the foreign parts of EP 083 and EP 029 and unlawful acts until the competent foreign courts have decided on the validity of those parts.
‘The court is also competent to hear the interim measures requested by Essity. After all, it follows from the foregoing that the court has international jurisdiction to hear the claims in the main proceedings in convention, so that it also has jurisdiction to hear provisional measures. ”
EP 083 is sufficiently disclosed and inventive. EP 029 is suficiently disclosed, new, inventive and contains no added matter. Indirect infringement of EP 083. Direct infringement of EP 029. Provisional cross-border injunction granted.
The judgment (in Dutch) can be read here.