EPLAW Patent Blog

EU - Provisional Cross-Border Jurisdiction in Patent Cases according to the CJEU in Solvay

Provisional Cross-Border Jurisdiction in Patent Cases according to the CJEU in Solvay, by Richard Ebbink, Brinkhof

Introduction
The Court of Justice of the European Union last year delivered a decision on the impact of the GAT/LuK decision on jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings (Solvay/Honeywell).

As the case below is continuing its way through the Dutch courts, the frequency of publications trying to make sense of the 2012 CJEU decision come down significantly. The majority of the commentators so far seem to conclude that the CJEU in Solvay gave the green light to cross-border jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings.

This is a fresh attempt at establishing the impact of the Solvay decision on the interpretation of the relevant articles of the Brussels Regulation (EU Regulation 2001/44).

Read the entire contribution (in English) here.

Comments Willem Hoyng on opinion AG in Solvay/Honeywell case

Comments of Willem A. Hoyng (Hoyng Monégier) on opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalon, delivered on 29 March 2012 (1), Case C‑616/10, Solvay SA v. Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV and Honeywell Europe NV

As I am acting in this case for Solvay I would like to give a more precise factual background and some comments on the opinion of the Advocate General (AG).

Solvay sued a Dutch and two Belgian Honeywell companies for the infringement of their EP patent in all countries where the European patent was valid claiming that all three companies infringed with the same product the EP in all these countries.

NL - Solvay v. Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe / referral CJEU re EEX

Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe B.V. et al, District Court The Hague, the Netherlands, 22 December 2010, Case No. 09-2275, with thanks to Willem Hoyng, Howrey, for sending in the decision

The present case is a follow up of the interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague d.d 15 September 2010 (read the previous post here), in which the court decided to refer questions on the correct interpretation of 'irreconcilable decisions' in the context of Article 6 (1) EEX and the correct interpretation of Article 22 (4) EEX to the Court of Justice EU.