JURISDICTION REPORT: NETHERLANDS
ALL SYSTEMS GO FOR DUTCH CROSS-BORDER INJUNCTIONS
Michiel Rijsdijk Arnold + Siedsma
It almost goes without saying that the Dutch courts have always been very lenient when it comes to assuming jurisdiction and granting cross-border injunctions. As we have mentioned before, the court in The Hague had been seemingly thwarted in the Solvay v Honeywell case. The admissibility of this practice was questioned again and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had the opportunity to rule on new questions. From the outset it was evident that the outcome of the case could either put an end to this practice or rule in favour of the Dutch courts and strengthen their competence. Either way, this decision would set clear lines.
Te key facts of the case were as follows. Solvay, wishing to put an end to infringements of its European patents by the three Honeywell companies, sought provisional relief in the form of a cross-border injunction. Honeywell in turn raised the defence of invalidity of the national parts of the patent. Te court in Te Hague found itself stuck on a spider’s web and referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. Of particular relevance is the CJEU’s reasoning that the court before which the interim proceedings have been brought does not make a final decision on the validity of the patent invoked—it only makes an assessment as to how the court, which has jurisdiction under Article 22(4), would rule.
We will now turn to the first question the CJEU had to answer. Tis dealt with the interpretation of Article 6(1) EEX (the EU Execution Regulation) and whether there was a risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. Te CJEU’s answer is not very surprising. According to the court, a situation where two or more companies from different member states are separately accused of infringing the same national part of a European patent, could indeed lead to irreconcilable judgments. It also emphasised that it is for the referring court to assess the existence of such a risk, taking into account all the relevant information.
Te second question was rather more interesting. It is this question that determines the ambit of the competence of the Dutch court with regard to cross-border injunctions. In essence, the CJEU had to answer whether Article 22(4) EEX would preclude Article 31 of that regulation. Article 22 determines that: “Member states shall have exclusive jurisdiction [...] in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that state”.
In fact, Article 31 has a different subject matter. It applies to member states other than those over which the courts have jurisdiction over the substance, whereas Article 22 concerns courts with jurisdiction over the substance. If there is a likelihood that the patent would be declared invalid, the court before which the interim proceedings have been brought will
“IF THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PATENT WOULD BE DECLARED INVALID, THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE INTERIM PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WILL REFUSE TO ADOPT THE SOUGHT PROVISIONAL MEASURE.”
refuse to adopt the sought provisional measure. In this way there is no risk of conflicting decisions, so Article 31 can be applied in these cases.
Te CJEU also pointed out that “in circumstances such as those at issue”, Article 22(4) must be interpreted as not precluding Article 31.
This leaves room for discussion and further interpretation, although the outcome of this case is still striking. It has been clarified that even in cases where the defendant raises the invalidity of the national parts of a patent the Dutch court may still adopt the sought provisional relief. Therefore The Netherlands remains a highly attractive forum when seeking cross-border injunctions.
Michiel Rijsdijk is a partner at Arnold + Siedsma. He can be contacted at:
mrijsdijk@arnold-siedsma.com
108 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128