CELEX: C2000/233/27
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-186/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 18 November 1997, in the case of 1) Boston Scientific Ltd, 2) Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life Systems Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis (UK) Ltd

12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              5.    Does the fact that two patents registered in different
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                   Contracting States stem from the same European patent
of 18 November 1997, in the case of 1) Boston Scientific                     application provide a sufficient connection for jurisdic-
Ltd, 2) Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life                 tion to be claimed under Article 6 in respect of a person
Systems Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis                        not domiciled in the state where litigation is pending
                             (UK) Ltd                                        against a defendant who is so domiciled where the
                                                                             allegations in that litigation are:
                         (Case C-186/00)
                                                                             a)    of infringment of both patents by the domiciled
                                                                                   person;
                         (2000/C 233/27)
                                                                             b)    or infringement only of the patent in the state where
                                                                                   litigation is pending by the domiciled person, but
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             the non-domiciled person is alleged to infringe the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                            other patent?
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 18 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2000, for           6.    Are the answers to any of the preceding questions
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Boston Scientific Ltd, 2)             different (and if so, which) if the proceedings are kort
Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life Systems                 geding proceedings in the Netherlands in respect of a
Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis (UK) Ltd, on the               European patent and the designated state is other than
following questions:                                                         the Netherlands?
1.    In the case of patents granted pursuant to European
      applications pursuant to the European Patent Convention,
      are the provisions of Article 2 and/or 64 of the European
      Patent Convention provisions which govern jurisdiction
      in relation to particular matters (i.e. proceedings for
      infringement of such patents) within the meaning of
      Article 57 of the Brussels Convention?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
                                                                       Trier, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, is the effect that,
                                                                       court of 17 May 2000 in the case of Urszula Ruhr v
      notwithstanding any other provision of the Brussels
                                                                                            Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
      Convention, proceedings for infringement of a patent
      granted pursuant to a European application can only be
      brought in the courts of the country in which the patent                                   (Case C-189/00)
      is registered?
                                                                                                 (2000/C 233/28)
3.    Where, under the national law of the state in which a
      patent is registered, the question of infringement of the
      patent depends upon the validity of the patent (so that,         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      where validity is in issue, the questions of infringement        European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social
      and validity would be tried together in the courts of the        Court) Trier, of 17 May 2000, which was received at the Court
      state):                                                          Registry on 22 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the following
                                                                       question:
      a)    do the courts of the state in which the patent is
            registered have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of
            both questions pursuant to Articles 16(4) and/or 19        Is the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
            of the Brussels Convention?                                No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                       security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                       moving within the Community (1), which was given by the
      b)    should the courts of the state in which the patent         Court of Justice in Case 40/76 Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für
            is not registered decline jurisdiction pursuant to         Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669, still authoritative even when it also
            Article 19?                                                indirectly affects the freedom of movement of a Member State
                                                                       national?
4.    Does article 24 enable a court not otherwise having
      jurisdiction in a matter to grant provisional relief in          (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
      circumstances where there are no proceedings seeking
      final relief pending or imminent before any court having
      jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention as to the
      substance of the matter?