This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0616
Case C-616/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action for infringement of a European patent — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Article 22(4) — Validity of the patent called into question — Article 31 — Provisional, including protective, measures)
Case C-616/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action for infringement of a European patent — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Article 22(4) — Validity of the patent called into question — Article 31 — Provisional, including protective, measures)
Case C-616/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action for infringement of a European patent — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Article 22(4) — Validity of the patent called into question — Article 31 — Provisional, including protective, measures)
IO C 287, 22.9.2012, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.9.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 287/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV
(Case C-616/10) (1)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Action for infringement of a European patent - Special and exclusive jurisdiction - Article 6(1) - More than one defendant - Article 22(4) - Validity of the patent called into question - Article 31 - Provisional, including protective, measures)
2012/C 287/11
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Solvay SA
Defendants: Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 6(1), Article 22(4) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Proceedings for interim relief brought by the proprietor of a European patent seeking an order prohibiting cross-border infringement of a patent
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where two or more companies established in different Member States, in proceedings pending before a court of one of those Member States, are each separately accused of committing an infringement of the same national part of a European patent which is in force in yet another Member State by virtue of their performance of reserved actions with regard to the same product, is capable of leading to ‘irreconcilable judgments’ resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in that provision. It is for the referring court to assess whether such a risk exists, taking into account all the relevant information in the file. |
|
2. |
Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of Article 31 of that regulation. |