This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/224/02
Case C-539/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg (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 — Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
Case C-539/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg (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 — Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
Case C-539/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg (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 — Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
OB C 224, 16.9.2006, p. 1–2
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 16/09/2006; дата на публикуване
- Author:
- Съд
- Form:
- Съдебна информация
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
16.9.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 224/1 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
(Case C-539/03) (1)
(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 - Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
(2006/C 224/02)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roche SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffmann-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB
Defendants: Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention — More than one defendant — Actions for infringement of a European patent brought against companies established in various European States — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the principal place of business of one of the companies.
Operative part of the judgment
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.
