Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006.

Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus and Milton Goldenberg.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands.

Brussels Convention - Article 6(1) - More than one defendant - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of the defendants is domiciled - Action for infringement of a European patent - Defendants established in different Contracting States - Infringements committed in a number of Contracting States.

Case C-539/03.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
16/09/2006 Roche Nederland and Others
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2006:458
13/07/2006 Roche Nederland and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2006:458
13/07/2006 Roche Nederland and Others
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2005:749
08/12/2005 Roche Nederland and Others
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
06/03/2004 Roche Nederland and Others
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2006 I-06535

Subject-matter

Interpretation of point 1 of Article 6 of the Brussels Convention -- Plurality of defendants -- Actions for infringement of a European patent brought against companies established in various European States -- Jurisdiction of the Court in the State of establishment of one of the companies

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 2001/44 -A06PT1 : paragraph 21
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A02L1 : paragraph 3
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A02P2 : paragraph 29
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A03L1 : paragraph 4
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A06 : paragraph 5
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A06PT1 : paragraph 41
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A16 : paragraph 6
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A16PT4 : paragraph 40
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A22 : paragraphs 8, 22, 24
  • Brussels Convention 1968 -A27PT3 : paragraph 9
  • Brussels Convention 1968 - annexed protocol -A05QUINQUIES : paragraph 7
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/86 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/87 : paragraphs 20, 21, 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/92 : paragraphs 22, 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -51/97 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -256/00 : paragraph 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -281/02 : paragraph 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -4/03 : paragraphs 37, 40

Operative part

  • Interprets : Brussels Convention 1968 -A06PT1

Opinion


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 22/12/2003

Date of the Opinion

  • 08/12/2005

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

13/07/2006


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 59 from 06.03.2004, p.11

Judgment: OJ C 224 from 16.09.2006, p.1

Name of the parties

Roche Nederland and Others

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Brinkhof, J.J.: Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2006 p.3-4 (NL)
  2. Brinkhof, J.J.: HvJ EG beperkt mogelijkheden van grensoverschrijdende verboden, Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2006 p.319-322 (NL)
  3. Wittwer, Alexander: Patentrecht im Doppelpack - zwei weitreichende Entscheidungen zur internationalen Zuständigkeit bei Patentverletzungen, European Law Reporter 2006 p.391-394 (DE)
  4. Conti, Roberto ; Foglia, Raffaele: Contraffazione di brevetti e pluralità di convenuti, Il Corriere giuridico 2006 p.1453-1455 (IT)
  5. Palmieri, A.: Il Foro italiano 2006 IV Col.493-494 (IT)
  6. Galli, Cesare: La Corte di giustizia restringe drasticamente lo spazio per le azioni cross-border in materia di brevetti, Il Corriere giuridico 2006 p.146-150 (IT)
  7. 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 (EN)
  8. Raynouard, Arnaud: Revue de jurisprudence commerciale 2006 p.495-497 (FR)
  9. 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 (FR)
  10. 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.548-552 (FR)
  11. Idot, Laurence: Compétence en cas de contrefaçon d'un brevet, Europe 2006 Octobre nº 299 p.28 (FR)
  12. 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 (EN)
  13. 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 (ES)
  14. Knöfel, Oliver L.: Kein "konzernübergreifender" europäischer Mehrparteiengerichtsstand für Patentverletzungsklagen!, MR-Int : europäische Rundschau zum Medienrecht, IP- & IT-Recht 2006 p.127-131 (DE)
  15. Adolphsen, Jens: Renationalisierung von Patentstreitigkeiten in Europa, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2007 p.15-21 (DE)
  16. Lange, Paul: Der internationale Gerichtsstand der Streitgenossenschaft im Kennzeichenrecht im Lichte der "Roche/Primus"-Entscheidung des EuGH, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2007 p.107-114 (DE)
  17. 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 (EN)
  18. Schlosser, Peter: Juristenzeitung 2007 p.305-307 (DE)
  19. Arvanitakis, P.: Armenopoulos 2007 p.145-146 (EL)
  20. 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 (SV)
  21. Bodson, E.: Le brevet européen est-il différent? L'arrêt Roche Nederland de la Cour de justice: vers une révision du règlement de Bruxelles en ce qui concerne la concentration de litiges transfrontaliers en matière de contrefaçon de brevets européens?, Revue de droit international et de droit comparé 2007 p.447-495 (FR)
  22. 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 (DE)
  23. Lundstedt, Lydia: In the Wake of GAT/LuK and Roche/Primus, Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2008 p.122-139 (EN)
  24. 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 (LT)
  25. Brinkhof, Jan: Dutch Courage?, Willem Hoyng Litigator - 2013 p. 357-382 (EN)
  26. Barba, Maxime: Leçon 1 : De la connexité et de son instrumentalisation....., Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2016 nº 111 p.28-32 (FR)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands

Subject-matter

  • Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
  • - Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

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

Léger

Language(s) of the Case

  • Dutch

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French