- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen – Sweden) – BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 4(1) – General jurisdiction – Article 24(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Infringement action – European patent validated in Member States and in a third State – Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence – International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0339
62022CA0339
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/2042
14.4.2025
(Case C-339/22,
BSH Hausgeräte)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 4(1) - General jurisdiction - Article 24(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents - Infringement action - European patent validated in Member States and in a third State - Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence - International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action)
(C/2025/2042)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH
Respondent: Electrolux AB
Operative part of the judgment
Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that a court of the Member State of domicile of the defendant which is seised, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, does still have jurisdiction to hear that action where, in the context of that action, that defendant challenges, as its defence, the validity of that patent, whereas the courts of that other Member State have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on that validity.
Article 24(4) of Regulation No 1215/2012
must be interpreted as not applying to a court of a third State and, consequently, as not conferring any jurisdiction, whether exclusive or otherwise, on such a court as regards the assessment of the validity of a patent granted or validated by that State. If a court of a Member State is seised, on the basis of Article 4(1) of that regulation, of an action alleging infringement of a patent granted or validated in a third State in which the question of the validity of that patent is raised, as a defence, that court has jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 4(1), to rule on that defence, its decision in that regard not being such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State or to cause the national register of that State to be amended.
—
OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2042/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—