Case C-539/03
Roche Nederland BV and Others
v
Frederick Primus and Milton Goldenberg
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)
(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)
Summary of the Judgment
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – More than one defendant
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 6(1))
Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them. Since neither the patent infringements of which the various defendants are accused nor the national law in relation to which those acts are assessed are the same there is no risk of irreconcilable decisions being given in European patent infringement proceedings brought in different Contracting States, since possible divergences between decisions given by the courts concerned would not arise in the context of the same factual and legal situation.
It follows that the connection required for Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention to apply cannot be established between such actions.
(see paras 20, 25, 27-28, 31, 33, 35, 41, operative part)