Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others.
Date: 2012-07-12
19. As regards its purpose, the rule of jurisdiction in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 meets, in accordance with recitals 12 and 15 in the preamble to that regulation, the wish to facilitate the sound administration of justice, to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and thus to avoid irreconcilable outcomes if cases are decided separately (see Case C-145/10 Painer  [2011] ECR I-12533, paragraph 77).
20. Moreover, that special rule of jurisdiction must be interpreted in the light, first, of recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 44/2001, according to which the rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor (see Case C-98/06 Freeport [2007] ECR I-8319, paragraph 36).
21. That special rule of jurisdiction, because it derogates from the principle stated in Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001 that jurisdiction be based on the defendant’s domicile, must be strictly interpreted and cannot be given an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by that regulation (see Painer , paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).
22. In addition, that rule cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow an applicant to make a claim against a number of defendants with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the State where one of those defendants is domiciled (see, to that effect, Case 189/87 Kalfelis  [1988] ECR 5565, paragraphs 8 and 9, and Painer , paragraph 78; Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne and Others [1998] ECR I-6511, paragraph 47; and Painer , paragraph 78).
23. Furthermore, the Court has held that it is for the national court to assess whether there is a connection between the different claims brought before it, that is to say, a risk of irreconcilable judgments if those claims were determined separately and, in that regard, to take account of all the necessary factors in the case-file (see Freeport , paragraph 41, and Painer , paragraph 83).
24. The Court has however stated in this connection that, in order for judgments to be regarded as at risk of being irreconcilable within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, it is not sufficient that there be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute, but that divergence must also arise in the same situation of fact and law (see Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland and Others  [2006] ECR I-6535, paragraph 26; Freeport , paragraph 40; and Painer , paragraph 79).
25. As regards the assessment of the existence of the same situation, the Court has ruled, first, that the existence of the same situation of fact cannot be inferred where the defendants are different and the infringements they are accused of, committed in different Contracting States, are not the same. Secondly, it has held that the same situation of law cannot be inferred where infringement proceedings are brought before a number of courts in different Contracting States in respect of a European patent granted in each of those States and those actions are brought against defendants domiciled in those States in respect of acts allegedly committed in their territory (see Roche Nederland and Others , paragraphs 27 and 31).
26. A European patent continues to be governed, as Articles 2(2) and 64(1) of the Munich Convention clearly show, by the national law of each of the Contracting States for which it has been granted. By the same token, any action for infringement of a European patent must, as is apparent from Article 64(3) of that convention, be examined in the light of the relevant national law in force in each of the States for which it has been granted ( Roche Nederland and Others , paragraphs 29 and 30).
42. In so far as Regulation No 44/2001 now replaces, in the relations between Member States, the Brussels Convention, the interpretation provided by the Court in respect of the provisions of that convention is also valid for those of that regulation whenever the provisions of those Community instruments may be regarded as equivalent (see, inter alia, Case C-189/08 Zuid-Chemie [2009] ECR I-6917, paragraph 18; Case C-292/08 German Graphics Graphische Maschinen  [2009] ECR I-8421, paragraph 27; and Case C-406/09 Realchemie Nederland  [2011] ECR I-9773, paragraph 38).
43. Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001, relevant to the examination of this question, reflects the same system as Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention and is, moreover, drafted in almost identical terms. In the light of such similarity, it is necessary to ensure, in accordance with recital 19 in the preamble to this regulation, continuity in their interpretation (see, by analogy, Case C-167/08 Draka NK Cables and Others  [2009] ECR I-3477, paragraph 20; Case C-180/06 Ilsinger  [2009] ECR I-3961, paragraph 58; and Zuid-Chemie , paragraph 19).
44. It must be pointed out in this connection that the Court, in paragraph 24 of its judgment in Case C-4/03 GAT  [2006] ECR I-6509, interpreted Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention widely, in order to ensure its effectiveness. It held that, having regard to the position of that provision within the scheme of that convention and the objective pursued, the rules of jurisdiction provided for in that provision are of an exclusive and mandatory nature, the application of which is specifically binding on both litigants and courts.
45. The Court also considered that the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention should apply whatever the form of proceedings in which the issue of a patent’s validity is raised, be it by way of an action or a defence, at the time the case is brought or at a later stage in the proceedings (see GAT , paragraph 25).
46. In addition, the Court has stated that to allow, within the scheme of the Brussels Convention, decisions in which courts other than those of the State in which a particular patent is issued rule indirectly on the validity of that patent would multiply the risk of conflicting decisions which the convention seeks specifically to avoid (see GAT , paragraph 29).