62022CJ0339_RES
Case C‑339/22
BSH Hausgeräte GmbH
v
Electrolux AB
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 4(1) – General jurisdiction – Article 24(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over the registration or validity of patents – Infringement action – European patent validated in Member States and in a third State – Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence – International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Determination of the international jurisdiction of a court of a Member State – Exclusive jurisdiction – Disputes concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Autonomous concepts of EU law – Uniform interpretation – National rule or procedure on the interpretation of a provision of EU law – No effect
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 24(4))
(see paragraphs 25, 26)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of Regulation No 44/2001 and of the Brussels Convention – Interpretation of those provisions in line with the Court’s case-law on Regulation No 44/2001 and the Brussels Convention – Exclusive jurisdiction – Disputes concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Concept – Independent interpretation – Strict interpretation
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 16(4); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 24(4); Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(4))
(see paragraphs 28, 43)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Determination of the international jurisdiction of a court of a Member State – Exclusive jurisdiction – Disputes concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Scope – Indirect review of the validity of a patent granted in a Member State in the context of an infringement action brought in another Member State – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Arts 4(1), 24(4) and 27)
(see paragraphs 35-37)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Determination of the international jurisdiction of a court of a Member State – Scope – Jurisdiction of the court of the defendant’s domicile – Action alleging infringement of a European patent validated in a number of Member States – Challenge by the defendant to the validity of the patent – Disputes concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Exclusive jurisdiction – Obligation on the court of the defendant’s domicile seised of the infringement action to declare that it does not have jurisdiction – None
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Arts 4(1), 24(4) and 27)
(see paragraphs 38-42, 44-48, 52, operative part 1)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Determination of the international jurisdiction of a court of a Member State – Jurisdiction of the court of the defendant’s domicile – Disputes concerning the registration or validity of patents – Infringement of patents granted in a third State – Scope – Indirect review by the court seised of the validity of the patent granted in a third State – Included
(Convention of 30 October 2007, Art. 22(4); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Arts 4(1), 24(4), 33, 34 and 73(1) and (3))
(see paragraphs 55-57, 61-76, operative part 2)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Scope – Existence of an international element – Dispute between parties domiciled in Member States – International element situated in a third State – Included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 4(1))
(see paragraphs 58-60)
Résumé
Seised of a request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Svea Court of Appeal, Patent and Commercial Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Sweden), the Court of Justice rules on the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012. (
1
) It finds that a court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant which is seised of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State does still have jurisdiction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent, whereas the courts of that other Member State have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on that validity.
BSH is the holder of a European patent which protects an invention in the field of vacuum cleaners. That patent was validated in Sweden and in various other Member States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Türkiye, which gave rise to the grant of national patents from those States.
In February 2020, BSH brought an action against Electrolux alleging infringement of all the national parts of that European patent before the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Commercial Court, Sweden). Electrolux submitted that the claims relating to infringements of the national parts of the patent other than the Swedish part were inadmissible, arguing, under both the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Swedish Law on patents, (
2
) that the foreign patents were invalid and that the Swedish courts therefore did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether they had been infringed.
The Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Commercial Court) declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear the action alleging infringement of patents other than the one validated in Sweden. BSH brought an appeal against that decision before the referring court.
That court is uncertain whether Article 24(4) (
3
) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant seised, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State still has jurisdiction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent. It is also uncertain whether Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a court of a third State and, consequently, as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on that court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated in that State.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court rules on the respective scopes of the rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts concerned as resulting from Article 4(1) (
4
) and Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It notes, first of all, that it is apparent from the wording of Article 24(4) of that regulation that the courts of the Member State granting the patent are to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerned with the registration or validity of that patent, irrespective of whether that issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence in an infringement action before a court of another Member State. That is justified by the fact that the grant of patents involves the intervention of the national authorities, and by the fact that those courts, which rule by applying their national law, are best placed to judge them. That concern for the sound administration of justice is all the more important since several Member States have established a special system of judicial protection, allowing only specialised courts to rule on patent disputes.
Where a court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled is seised, pursuant to the Brussels I bis Regulation, (
5
) of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted by another Member State, in the context of which the defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent, that court cannot establish, indirectly, the invalidity of that patent, but must declare that it does not have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 27 of that regulation, (
6
) as regards the issue of the validity of that patent, in the light of the rule that the courts of the Member State in which the patent is granted have exclusive jurisdiction, as provided for in Article 24(4) of that regulation.
However, since that rule of exclusive jurisdiction covers only disputes ‘concerned with the registration or validity of patents’, a court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant seised, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, does still have jurisdiction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent.
In the second place, as regards the question whether Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a court of a third State and therefore confers exclusive jurisdiction on that court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated in that State, the Court observes that the subject of the wording of that provision is the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and that the regime laid down by the Brussels I bis Regulation is a system of jurisdiction internal to the European Union which pursues objectives specific to it, such as the proper functioning of the internal market and the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice. Since Article 24(4) of that regulation cannot be regarded as applicable in a situation in which the patents concerned are granted or validated not in a Member State but in a third State, (
7
) that provision does not apply to a court of a third State and, consequently, does not confer any jurisdiction, whether exclusive or otherwise, on such a court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated in that State.
However, although the jurisdiction in principle of the court of the defendant’s domicile laid down in Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation may be restricted, both by special rules (
8
) and by general international law, it does not appear that any restriction provided for by the latter needs to be taken into consideration in the present case.
As regards general international law, the Court recalls that a measure adopted by virtue of the powers of the European Union, such as the Brussels I bis Regulation, must be interpreted, and its scope limited, in the light of the rules and principles of general international law, which are binding upon the EU institutions. In that regard, the jurisdiction of the court of the defendant’s domicile to rule in a dispute which is connected, at least in part, with a third State, is not contrary to the international law principle of the relative effect of treaties.
Moreover, that jurisdiction must be exercised without infringing the principle of non-interference. In the exercise of its powers, the grant by a State of a national patent, which confers on its holder exclusive intellectual property rights within that State, follows from the national sovereignty of that State. Where a judicial decision concerning a patent affects the existence or content of those exclusive rights, only the courts having jurisdiction in that State may give such a decision.
By contrast, the court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant which is seised, on the basis of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, of an infringement action in the context of which the issue of the validity of a patent granted or validated in a third State is raised as a defence does have jurisdiction to rule on that issue if no restriction is applicable. Since the decision sought in that regard has only inter partes effects, it is not such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State or to cause the national register of that State to be amended.
The Court concludes in that regard that Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must be interpreted as not applying to a court of a third State and, consequently, as not conferring any jurisdiction, whether exclusive or otherwise, on such a court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated by that State.
(
1
)	Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1;‘the Brussels I bis Regulation’).
(
2
)	See second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (1967:837) (Law on patents (1967:837)).
(
3
)	Article 24 of the Brussels I bis Regulation: ‘The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: … (4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place. Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office [(EPO)] under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that Member State; …’
(
4
)	Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation: states that ‘subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’
(
5
)	Under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
(
6
)	Article 27 of the Brussels I bis Regulation: ‘Where a court of a Member State is seised of a claim which is principally concerned with a matter over which the courts of another Member State have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.’
(
7
)	See, to that effect, judgment of 8 September 2022, IRnova (C‑399/21, EU:C:2022:648, paragraph 35).
(
8
)	Article 73 of Brussels I bis Regulation.