Foreign Patent Disputes under the Brussels I bis Regulation: AG Emiliou’s Opinion

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, who is an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University. In the interest of transparency, author notes that she previously wrote an expert legal opinion on behalf of BSH Hausgeräte.

On 22 February 2024, Advocate General (AG) Emiliou’s Opinion on the interpretation of Article 24(4) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22) was published.

Article 24(4) confers exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents” upon “the courts of the Member State in which the … registration has been applied for, [or] has taken place …”.

AG Emiliou opines that Article 24(4) 1) does not encompass infringement proceedings even after an alleged infringer pleads the invalidity of the foreign patent; and 2) does not apply to proceedings concerning patents registered in third states, but that a Member State court may give Article 24(4) reflexive effect on the basis of national law. See here for a brief synopsis of the facts and the questions referred and GAVC LAW for a good review of the opinion.

Article 24(4) Does Not Apply to Infringement Proceedings Even After Invalidity is Pleaded

Prior to the CJEU ruling in GAT (C-4/03), there were three possible interpretations of what is now Article 24(4). GAT ruled out the first interpretation, i.e., that the provision does not apply to preliminary questions, by holding that what is now Article 24(4) applied to “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”. In describing this background, the AG calls GAT an “unfortunate decision” because it goes beyond what is necessary to fulfil the raison d’être of Article 24(4), which in the AG’s view, is deference to national sovereignty. He explains that because an invalidity finding in an infringement proceeding has only inter partes effects, it does not encroach upon the sovereignty of the state of patent registration. He states that if the EU legislator had not codified GAT when it amended the Regulation, he would have advised the CJEU to overturn GAT.

Even after GAT and its codification, uncertainty remained concerning which of the remaining two interpretations of Article 24(4) were correct, namely, 1) that once invalidity is raised, infringement proceedings fall within Article 24(4) and the infringement court loses its jurisdiction (broad reading) or 2) that while validity falls within Article 24(4), infringement does not. Thus, a court having jurisdiction over an infringement dispute based on the rules in the Regulation retains its jurisdiction over the infringement claim but may not determine validity (narrow reading).

The AG finds that the narrow reading is the “lesser evil” because it better aligns with the system and objectives of the Regulation. Specifically, he finds that it better respects the relationship between the general rule in Article 4 and the exception in Article 24(4), and also better ensures legal certainty as the defendant will not be able to undermine the plaintiff’s choice of jurisdiction by raising a validity defence.

Moreover, the AG notes that a narrow reading ensures that a defendant cannot “torpedo” the proceedings and deny the patent holder its right to intellectual property and to an effective remedy (see Article 17(2) and Article 47 of the EU Charter and 41(2) TRIPS) by raising invalidity so late in the proceedings that the statute of limitations has expired so the patent holder cannot initiate new proceedings before the court of registration.

That said, the AG argues that Article 47 of the Charter requires the infringement court to take the invalidity defence into account and he offers practical guidelines on how a Member State court should procced. He suggests that if an invalidity defence has been properly raised, the infringement court should make a preliminary analysis of how a court in the state of registration would decide the matter (compare Solvay (C‑616/10), where such an analysis is done before granting a preliminary injunction) and balance the patent holder’s right to an effective remedy as well as the requirement of efficiency of procedure with the alleged infringer’s right of defence and the sound administration of justice. If the invalidity defence is serious, the Member State court having jurisdiction over the infringement claim should instruct the defendant to initiate invalidity proceedings in the state of patent registration within a set deadline and stay the infringement case in accordance with its procedural rules until the validity question has been decided by the courts/authorities of the state of registration.

Member State Courts May Give Article 24(4) Reflexive Effect

The AG notes that the reflexive effect of Article 24(4) has implications for the interpretation of the other rules in Article 24 and for Article 25 on prorogation agreements. The starting point for the AG’s analysis is that the Regulation has a “design flaw” in that while it applies to disputes where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State and the subject matter is closely connected to a third state, it was not designed for such disputes. Thus, the AG opines that the gap needs to be filled in by one of three ways.

The AG rejects the first way, i.e., applying Articles 24/25 by analogy to such situations, because it goes against the clear wording of these articles which refer to a “Member State” and also because previous CJEU case law had already held that the Articles did not apply (see IRnova (C-399/21) concerning patents registered in third states and Coreck Maritime (C-387/98) concerning prorogation agreements in favour of third states). The AG also notes that such a solution would be inconsistent with the system of the Regulation.

The AG also rejects a second way whereby Member States courts having jurisdiction over such disputes based on a rule in the Regulation, are bound to exercise that jurisdiction. Referring to the “design flaw” mentioned above, the AG first opines that an absence of specific provisions addressing these situations cannot be interpreted to mean that Member State courts must exercise jurisdiction. The AG notes that there is nothing in the wording or recitals of Articles 33 and 34 that suggests that these provisions are exhaustive. Articles 33 and 34 allow a Member State court to stay proceedings under certain circumstances if proceedings are already pending in a third state court. The AG also rejects the argument that Owusu (C-281/02) supports this interpretation. In that decision, the CJEU stated “Article 2 of the Brussels Convention [now Article 4 of the Regulation] is mandatory in nature and that, according to its terms, there can be no derogation from the principle it lays down except in the cases expressly provided for by the Convention”. The AG notes that in Owusu the CJEU declined to answer the second question which dealt with the specific situation here. The AG also notes that Coreck Maritime and Mahamdia (C‑154/11) suggests that Member State courts are permitted to give effect to prorogation agreements in favour of third state courts.

Second, the AG opines that such an interpretation (i.e. the second way) would be at a variance with the raison d’êtreof Article 24 to give deference to sovereignty and of Article 25 to respect party autonomy. Moreover, he states that this interpretation would not contribute to legal certainty because a resulting Member state judgment would not be valid in the third state and the issue may be relitigated there resulting in irreconcilable judgments.

Third, the AG notes that the Lugano Convention and the 2005 Hague Convention do not remedy these problems because they only bind a few states and therefore unilateral solutions within the framework of the Regulation are needed.

Lastly, the AG rejects the argument that this interpretation was the clear intention of the EU legislator noting that it was not expressed in the text of Regulation, the travaux preparatoires are generally not clear, and in any case, must be understood in the context whereby the EU legislator abandoned the idea of achieving a comprehensive solution to disputes connected to third states.

The AG suggests therefore a third way of filling the gap, i.e. that the Regulation permits Member State courts that have jurisdiction over such disputes pursuant to a rule of the Regulation, to decline jurisdiction on the basis of national law. That said, the AG opines that the Member State courts’ discretion is limited by EU law in that 1) a Member State court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute connected to a third State only where the matter in dispute (i.e. patent invalidity) would fall within the scope of Article 24 had the matter been located in a Member State, or where a choice-of-court agreement in favour of a third state otherwise fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 25; and 2) a Member State court must respect the rules on the protection of weaker parties and the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State. However, even when these conditions are fulfilled, the AG opines that a Member State court is not required to decline jurisdiction if there is a risk for denial of justice. The AG rejects the argument that this creates a risk for legal uncertainty because this way gives narrow discretion to the Member state courts under specific circumstances.

Comment

I heartily agree with the AG opinion concerning the scope of Article 24(4) so I will limit my comments to his opinion on the reflexive effect of Article 24(4). It seems a bit odd to start off with the premise that there is a design flaw in the Regulation that the CJEU needs to fix instead of accepting the Regulation as it is and interpreting it accordance to the CJEU’s methods of interpretation. The wording of the provisions and the system of the Regulation suggest that Member State courts may not give Articles 24 and 25 reflexive effect under national law.

Indeed, Articles 24 and 25 expressly apply only to Member State courts and Articles 33-34 expressly apply to third state courts. Articles 33-34 are the only rules in the Regulation that permit a Member State court to decline or stay jurisdiction in favour of a third state court. In particular, recital 24 instructs that when applying Articles 33-34, a Member State court may take into consideration

whether the court of the third State has exclusive jurisdiction in the particular case in circumstances where a court of a Member State would have exclusive jurisdiction.

An e contrario interpretation suggests that a Member State may not decline jurisdiction in other situations (except where a higher norm demands this). Moreover, if the Member States already had discretion to give Article 24 and 25 reflexive effect, then Articles 33-34 are superfluous. Lastly, Article 6 exhaustively informs when the Member State courts may apply national rules.

With regard to the objective of Article 24 of giving deference to sovereignty, an argument can be made that, in the absence of an international obligation, the EU does not give third state sovereign interests the same weight as Member State interests. A similar argument can be made with respect to Article 25, i.e., that the EU intentionally refuses to give effect to third state prorogation agreements outside of its treaty obligations, e.g. 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. That said, the situations involved in Articles 24 and 25 are not completely congruent as Article 25 raises the issue of party autonomy, which is arguably a fundamental right. Also, introducing a discretionary reflexive effect does not further the objective of legal certainty including strengthening the legal protection of persons established in the European Community as it will be less easy to identify in which court one can sue and be sued.

Curiously, the AG’s solution has the unfortunate result that it extends to third states the very solution that the AG criticizes. On the one hand, the AG is critical of GAT and its codification in Article 24(4) because it goes beyond what is necessary to fulfil Article 24(4)’s objective of giving deference to the sovereignty interests of the state of patent registration. On the other hand, the AG suggests that deference to sovereignty interests of the state of patent registration requires that the Member State courts give Article 24(4) reflexive effect when a matter would have fallen under Article 24(4) had the patent been registered in another Member State instead of a third state.

When it comes to the application of Article 24(4), as the AG notes, the CJEU is now “trapped in the solution that it initially adopted”. This is not the case however when giving Article 24(4) reflexive effect. There is no reason why the rule cannot be adapted to better serve its objective without going beyond what is necessary. As noted, deference to the sovereignty interests of a third state does not require a Member State court that is exercising jurisdiction on the basis of a rule in the Regulation to decline jurisdiction over a question concerning a third state patent’s invalidity when the question is raised in infringement action. Thus, there is no reason to “reflexively” apply Article 24(4) to these situations. In contrast, if an alleged infringer sued a patent holder in a Member State on the basis of a rule in the Regulation asking the court to invalidate with erga omnes effect a patent registered in a third state, Article 24(4) should “reflexively” apply as a matter of EU law giving effect to a recognised rule of public international law that one state will not invalidate the public law acts of another state.