On 25 February 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) issued a landmark decision on jurisdiction in cross-border patent disputes (C 339/22). The decision clarifies how Article 24(4) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, also known as “Brussels Ia”) applies when the validity of a patent is challenged only as a defense (by way of exception) in an infringement action—covering both patents validated in EU Member States and patents granted or validated in non-EU (third) states. The big question for the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be whether this further boosts its widely acknowledged attractiveness, or whether this could even mean “unexpected” competition by national courts.
BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Germany) owns a European patent (EP 1 434 512) validated in multiple EU Member States and in Turkey. BSH sued Electrolux AB (Sweden) before a Swedish court for infringing all national parts of the European patent (including the Turkish part).
Electrolux argued that the patent parts validated outside Sweden (including Turkey) were invalid and that the Swedish court lacked jurisdiction to rule on those infringement claims. It relied on Article 24(4) of Brussels Ia, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the state where the patent is registered/validated for questions regarding validity.
The Swedish Court (First Instance) held it was not competent to decide on infringement of non-Swedish parts of the patent. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal referred key questions to the CJEU about the interplay between Article 4(1) (general rule: defendant’s domicile) and Article 24(4) (exclusive jurisdiction for “validity”) of the Brussels Ia Regulation.
The CJEU confirms that Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies only to actions “principally concerning the registration or validity of a patent”. In a pure infringement action, even where invalidity is raised as a defence - and even if national law requires a separate revocation proceedings - the court seized under Article 4(1) (i.e., the defendant’s domicile) remains competent to decide the infringement issue.
Important Note: The domicile court cannot itself invalidate the foreign patent, as that power belongs exclusively to the courts of the patent’s granting or validating state. Any determination on validity has effect only inter partes.
Article 24(4) covers patents granted or validated in an EU Member State only. For patents validated in non-EU (third) countries (such as Turkey), that exclusive jurisdiction rule does not apply.
As a result, a claimant may bring an infringement action before the court of the defendant’s domicile for the third-state patent, and that court can assess the validity defence between the parties (with inter-partes effect only).
Patent proprietors can continue to bring a single infringement claim at the defendant’s domicile for multiple national parts of a European patent, even when those parts are validated in different EU Member States (and potentially in third states such as Turkey).
Defendants cannot simply “oust” the forum by raising an invalidity plea. While they remain free to file a separate nullity action in the patent’s home country, the infringement court keeps jurisdiction on the question of whether the defendant committed infringement.
If a defendant initiates a nullity action in the granting state, the infringement court may stay its own proceedings to await the nullity decision, thereby avoiding conflicting outcomes.
Article 24(4) does not extend to patents in non-EU countries. The defendant’s domicile court may still hear the infringement claim, and only an inter-partes assessment of validity occurs in that forum. Any formal cancellation of the patent’s registration must be decided in the non-EU country itself.
!! Note: If, at the time of reading this blog, the English version of the decision is not available, switch the language to French or Swedish when following the link below !!
