Interim and cross-border injunctions against pharmaceutical patent infringement

This e-presentation deals with the judicial interpretation of some articles of the Brussels I Regulation in relation to the competent jurisdiction for interim and cross-boarder injunctions in patent litigation cases. The speaker focusses the first part of his speech on the Solvay v Honeywell case (2012) where the CJEU gave some guidelines as to the competent jurisdiction for cross-boarder injunctions in patent infringement cases committed by several defendants. The second part of the speech is dedicated to comments on a national decision (Bayer/Sandoz/Effik Benelux) where the Belgium Court of Appeal gave some guidelines as to the competent jurisdiction for interim injunctions against patent infringers.

Jan-Diederik Lindemans

Information

Standard version

This version of the e-presentation allows you to jump back and forward to the section of most interest.
No certificate can be provided for using this version.

Start

Certified version

This version requires you to view the full e-presentation and to take a short quiz at the end. A certificate can then be issued entitling you to CPD points in selected jurisdictions.

Start

Question 1 of 3

Question 1: According to the Brussels I Regulation, in case of several defendants, the patent holder must bring his claim for a cross-boarder injunction against patent infringement:

to the Court of his domicile if there is no risk of irreconcilable judgement.

to the Court of the place of the infringements exclusively.

to the Court of the domicile of one of the infringer when claims are closely connected and there is a risk of irreconcilable judgement.

Question 2 of 3

Question 2: If the infringer raises the invalidity of the intellectual property right as a defence:

The Court of the country of registration of the intellectual property right has exclusive jurisdiction re invalidity.

The Court of the country of the defendant has exclusive jurisdiction re invalidity.

The Court of the country of registration of the intellectual property right has to stay the case .

Question 3 of 3

**Question 3: When do we have irreconcilable judgement according to the CJEU in its decision Solvay v Honeywell from 2012?**

If the judge who has to apply the same law for the same facts is asked to rule on cases involving several defendants.

If the judge who has to apply different laws for different facts is asked to rule on cases involving several defendants.

If the judge who has to apply the same law for different facts is asked to rule on cases involving different defendants.