The Court of Justice of the European Union last year delivered a decision on the impact of the GAT/LuK decision on jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings (Solvay/Honeywell).
As the case below is continuing its way through the Dutch courts, the frequency of publications trying to make sense of the 2012 CJEU decision come down significantly. The majority of the commentators so far seem to conclude that the CJEU in Solvay gave the green light to cross-border jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings.
This is a fresh attempt at establishing the impact of the Solvay decision on the interpretation of the relevant articles of the Brussels Regulation (EU Regulat [...]
Last year the English Supreme Court in a copyright case held that there is no doubt that the modern trend is in favour of the enforcement of foreign IP rights and that there are no issues of policy which militate against it nor is there any objection in principle. This could be different, the Supreme Court also considered, where issues of validity are engaged. See: Lucasfilm/Ainsworth, 27 July 2011, paras 108 and 109.
Last week the High Court of England & Wales in a patent case held that it had jurisdiction to decide on a declaration of non-infringement not only regarding the GB part, but also regarding the French, the Germ [...]
In its 2006 decision in the matter called GAT/LuK the ECJ held that Article 22-4 of the Brussels Regulation – which provides for exclusive national jurisdiction regarding the validity of patents and other registered rights – applies to all proceedings relating to the validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or plea in objection.
By decision of 22 December 2010 the District Court of The Hague (Judge Kalden) referred to the EUCJ several questions on the interpretation of the Articles 6-1, 22-4, and 31 BR. One of those questions is whether the GAT/LuK decision also applies in provisional proceedings. The case is called Solvay/Honeywell and is pendi [...]