Case C-539/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg (Brussels Convention — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of the defendants is domiciled — Action for infringement of a European patent — Defendants established in different Contracting States — Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, industrial counterfeiting, interpretation of the law, patent law

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Gesellschaft
für
Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG (GAT) v Lamellen und
Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (LuK)

rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings
relating to the registration or validity of a patent,
irrespective of
whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection.

(Case C-4/03) (1)

(1) OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.

(Brussels Convention — Article 16(4) — Proceedings
concerned with the registration or validity of patents —
Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the place of deposit or
registration — Declaratory action to establish no infringe-
ment — Question of the patent's validity raised indirectly)

(2006/C 224/01)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gesellschaft
(GAT)

für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (LuK)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düssel-
dorf — Interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Brussels Conven-
tion — Exclusive jurisdiction ‘in proceedings concerned with
the … validity of patents’ — Whether that covers a declaratory
action to establish that a patent has (or has not) been infringed,
in the course of which one party pleads that the patent is
invalid

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
Judgments in Civil and Commercial
tion and the Enforcement of
Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996
on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as meaning that the

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV,
Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La
Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoff-
mann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH,
Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg

(Case C-539/03) (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 6(1) — More than one defen-
dant — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of
the defendants is domiciled — Action for infringement of a
European patent — Defendants established in different
Contracting States — Patent infringements committed in a
number of Contracting States)

(2006/C 224/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems
Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roche SA,
Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffmann-La
Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB

Defendants: Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg

C 224/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Re:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Conven-
tion — More than one defendant — Actions for infringement
of a European patent brought against companies established in
various European States — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the
principal place of business of one of the companies.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996
on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it
does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving
a number of companies established in various Contracting States in
respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where
those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in
an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy
elaborated by one of them.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Italian
Republic

(Case C-119/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment
of the Court establishing failure — Non-compliance —
Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Recognition of
acquired rights of former foreign-language assistants)

(2006/C 224/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 —
Commission of the European Communities v Volkswagen
AG

(Case C-74/04 P) (1)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant:
Agent, and M. Fiorilli, Avvocato)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I. M. Braguglia,

(Appeal — Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Distribution
of motor vehicles — Meaning of ‘agreements between under-
takings’ — Proof of the existence of an agreement)

(2006/C 224/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228
EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of 26 June 2001 in
Case C-212/99 — Infringement of Article 48 EC (now, after
amendment, Article 39 EC) — Recognition of the acquired
rights of former foreign-language assistants — Application for
the imposition of a penalty payment

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Mölls, Agent, H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

Other party to the proceedings: Volkswagen AG (represented by:
R. Bechtold and S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2003 in Case T-208/01
Volkswagen AG v Commission, annulling Commission Decision
2001/711/EC of 29 June 2001 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COM P/F-2/36.693 — Volks-
wagen) (OJ 2001 L 262, p. 14) — Conduct of Volkswagen vis-
à-vis its German dealers in connection with the marketing of
the new ‘Volkswagen Passat Variant’ model

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. The Court declares that by not ensuring, at the date of expiry of
the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, recognition of the
rights acquired by former assistants who have become associates
and linguistic experts, even though such recognition is guaranteed
to all national workers, the Italian Republic has failed to take all
the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 26 June
2001 in Case C-212/99 Commission v Italy and has therefore
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.