Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[JURE SUMMARY](#SM)

## JURE SUMMARY

A US company and a German company applied to the Handelsgericht of Aargau (CH) for provisional measures to the effect of preventing the respondents, several international companies, from importing medication prepared in a certain fashion into Switzerland and selling it there as well as aiding third parties in such actions. The actions whose prevention was sought infringe on a European patent held by the US company. The respondents were participants in the alleged patent infringement, whereby certain acts of infringement had occurred in the Canton of Aargau. The German company also had standing to make an application since it was the exclusively licensee. The respondents raised a jurisdictional challenge. When it was rejected, they lodged an appeal to the Bundesgericht (CH).
The Bundesgericht dismisses the appeal. According to Article 5(3) Lugano Convention, a person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. Article 109(1) of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (IPRG) provides further that regarding infringement actions concerning intellectual property rights the Swiss courts for the place at which the right is invoked have jurisdiction in the event that the sued party is not domiciled in Switzerland. Finally, according to Article 109(1) IPRG, in the case that several parties are sued on essentially identical facts and law, they may all be sued in any competent court so long as Swiss jurisdiction over all of them is established. In conclusion, the Swiss courts have jurisdiction upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties.

[Top](#document1)