Reports of Cases

2006 I-06509

Subject-matter

Interpretation of Art. 16(4) of the Brussels Convention -- Exclusive jurisdiction "in proceedings concerned with the ... validity of patents" -- Whether that covers a declaratory action to establish that a patent has (or has not) been infringed, in the course of which one party pleads that the patent is invalid

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT4 : paragraphs 1, 3, 16, 20, 24, 27, 28, 31
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A17L4 : paragraph 4
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A18 : paragraphs 4, 5
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A19 : paragraphs 6, 19
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A28L1 : paragraph 7
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/82 : paragraphs 14 - 16, 22, 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/92 : paragraph 29
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -256/00 : paragraph 28
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 : paragraph 28
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -539/03 : paragraph 28

Operative part

• Interprets : Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT4

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 229A : point 32
  
• Regulation 44/2001 : points 8, 23
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A02 : points 4, 17, 24, 44
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A05PT3 : point 17
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A05PT5 : point 17
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A06PT1 : point 17
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT1 : point 33
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT2 : point 33
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT3 : point 33
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT4 : points 1, 4, 7, 11, 15 - 21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A17 : point 31
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A18 : point 31
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A19 : point 34
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A21 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -288/82 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 : point 4
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -115/88 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -518/99 : points 22, 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/00 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -111/01 : points 45, 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -168/02 : points 4, 25
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 06/01/2003

Date of the Opinion

• 16/09/2004

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

13/07/2006

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 55 from 08.03.2003, p.14

Judgment: OJ C 224 from 16.09.2006, p.1

Name of the parties

GAT

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Brinkhof, J.J.: HvJ EG beperkt mogelijkheden van grensoverschrijdende verboden, Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2006 p.319-322
2. Wittwer, Alexander: Patentrecht im Doppelpack - zwei weitreichende Entscheidungen zur internationalen Zuständigkeit bei Patentverletzungen, European Law Reporter 2006 p.391-394
3. Conti, Roberto ; Foglia, Raffaele: Contraffazione, nullità del brevetto e competenza giurisdizionale, Il Corriere giuridico 2006 p.1452-1453
4. Palmieri, A.: Il Foro italiano 2006 IV Col.493-494
5. Franzina, Pietro: Considerazioni intorno alla cognizione delle questioni pregiudiziali nella disciplina comunitaria della competenza, Il Corriere giuridico 2006 p.119-122
6. Ebbink, Richard: A Fire-Side Chat On Cross-Border Issues (before the ECJ in GAT v. LuK), Festschrift für Jochen Pagenberg 2006 p.255-262
7. Raynouard, Arnaud: Revue de jurisprudence commerciale 2006 p.495-497
8. Wilderspin, Michael: La compétence juridictionnelle en matière de litiges concernant la violation des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Les arrêts de la Cour de justice dans les affaires C-4/03, GAT c. LUK et C-539/03, Roche Nederland c. Primus et Goldberg, Revue critique de droit international privé 2006 p.777-809
9. Tagaras, Haris: Chronique de jurisprudence de la Cour de justice relative à la Convention de Bruxelles. Années judiciaires 2004-2005 et 2005-2006, Cahiers de droit européen 2006 p.541-547
10. Idot, Laurence: Compétence en cas de contrefaçon d'un brevet, Europe 2006 Octobre nº 299 p.28
11. Warner, Steven ; Middlemiss, Susie: Patent Litigation in Multiple Jurisdictions: An End to Cross-border Relief in Europe?, European Intellectual Property Review 2006 p.580-585
12. Alvarez González, Santiago ; Requejo Isidro, Marta: Litigación internacional sobre patentes en Europa. El sistema de competencia judicial internacional interpretado por el TJCE (Reflexiones tras las sentencias del TJCE de 13 de julio de 2006 en los casos GAT y ROCHE), Actas de derecho industrial y derecho de autor 2006 p.661-677
13. Adolphsen, Jens: Renationalisierung von Patentstreitigkeiten in Europa, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2007 p.15-21
14. Alvarez González, Santiago: Procesos por violación de patente extranjera y competencia judicial para conocer de la excepción de nulidad (GAT contra LuK), Diario La ley 2007 nº 6683 p.1-8
15. Kur, A ; Metzger, A.: Exclusive jurisdiction and cross border IP (patent) infringement suggestions for amendment of the Brussels I regulation, Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2007 p.1-8
16. Gottschalk, Eckart: Juristenzeitung 2007 p.300-303
17. Fumagalli, Luigi: Giurisdizione esclusiva e accertamento incidentale della validità di brevetto nel sistema di "Bruxelles I"., Rivista di diritto processuale 2007 p.738-749
18. Maunsbach, Ulf: Gränsöverskridande patenttvister i ny gemenskapsrättslig belysning - en kommentar till EG-domstolens avgöranden i målen C-4/03 (GAT) och C-539/03 (Roche), Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2007 p.240-254
19. Knaak, Roland: Internationale Zuständigkeiten und Möglichkeiten des forum shopping in Gemeinschaftsmarkensachen - Auswirkungen der EuGH-Urteile Roche Niederlande und GAT/LUK auf das Gemeinschaftsmarkenrecht, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, internationaler Teil 2007 p.386-394
20. Bukow, Johannes: Die Entscheidung GAT/LUK und ihre Konsequenzen - Vom Ende der "Cross-Border-Injunctions", Gewerbliche Schutzrechte und ihre Durchsetzung : Festschrift für Tilman Schilling 2007 p.59-71
21. Lundstedt, Lydia: In the Wake of GAT/LuK and Roche/Primus, Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2008 p.122-139
22. Schauwecker, Marko: Die Entscheidung GAT gegen LuK und drittstaatliche Patente, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, internationaler Teil 2009 p.187-195
23. Jurčys, Paulius: Teismingumas intelektinės nuosavybės teisių bylose pagal Briuselio I reglamentą: ETT sprendimai GAT ir Roche bylose bei CLIP reformos pasiūlymai, Justitia - Teisės Mokslo ir Praktikos Žurnalas 2010 Nr. 1 (73) p.71-85
24. McGuire, Mary-Rose: GAT/LuK Revisited: Die internationale Zuständigkeit in Patentstreitigkeiten vor dem Hintergrund der EuGVO-Reform, Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 2011 p.983-993

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf - Germany

Subject-matter

• Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
  
• - Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
  
• Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  
• - Patents
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), Paragraph 512a

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Jann

Advocate General

Geelhoed

Language(s) of the Case

• German
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• Dutch