Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, uitspraak van 07/09/2005 05/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2005:AU7477
Date: 2005-09-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82005NL0907(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, with its statutory seat in the United States, is the owner of European Patents. Defendant B, with its statutory seat in the Netherlands, sold bar soap on the Dutch market in violation of those patents. Defendant A is the Dutch parent company of a multinational enterprise and majority shareholder of Defendant B. The plaintiff sued both before the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (NL) and sought a Europe-wide injunction against the violation of its patent rights. Defendant A disputed the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank. It claimed the suit was without merit because the plaintiff had not sufficiently substantiated its claim that Defendant A had taken part in any patent-infringing activity. The Rechtbank, it alleged, could also not issue any orders with extraterritorial effect. Defendant A stated it would base its case in the main proceedings on the invalidity of the patents. Thus, the Rechtbank should decide the jurisdiction issue pursuant to Articcle 22(4) Brussels I Regulation. As the Rechtbank had issued a request to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on Article 22(4) Brussels I Regulation in another case (C-4/03 GAT/LuK), the plaintiff asserted that it must stay the current proceedings until the ECJ has answered.
The Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (NL) finds that it has jurisdiction under Article 2 Brussels I Regulation. To what extent Defendant A, in its capacity as the actual leadership of a company, be liable for any patent-infringing activity is just as irrelevant in a review for jurisdiction as the question whether the claim is frivolous. The Rechtbank postpones for reasons of adminsitrative efficiency the challenge to the other grounds for jurisdiction under Article 22(4) Brussels I Regulation. It must first be seen whether Defendant A also raises this challenge in the main proceeding, and it is entirely possible that the ECJ issues a decision in re C-4/03 (GAT)LuK). The Rechtbank declares itself to have jurisdiction.