欧盟法院对欧洲跨境知识产权诉讼的里程碑式判决

侵权诉讼程序是针对居住在欧盟成员国的被告提起的。但是，所涉及知识产权的有效性在另一个成员国受到挑战。审理侵权诉讼的法院是否具有审理诉讼请求的管辖权？在博西家用电器集团（BSH Hausgeräte GmbH）诉伊莱克斯公司（Electrolux AB）案中，欧盟法院确认成员国法院具有管辖权。

Infringement proceedings are brought against a defendant in the EU Member State where they are domiciled. But the validity of the IP right in question is being challenged in another Member State. Does the court hearing the infringement action retain jurisdiction to hear the claim? The CJEU in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB confirms it does. 

博西家电拥有与真空吸尘器有关的欧洲发明专利。这项专利在瑞典和其他成员国（奥地利、法国、德国、希腊、意大利、荷兰和西班牙）以及英国和土耳其生效，这使得国家专利在这些国家获得授权。

BSH owns a European patent for an invention related to vacuum cleaners. This patent was validated in Sweden and various other Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain), as well as the UK and Turkey, which resulted in national patents being granted in those countries. 

2020年2月，博西家电在瑞典（伊莱克斯业务总部所在地）对伊莱克斯提起诉讼，指控伊莱克斯侵犯了其欧洲专利的国家部分权利。伊莱克斯辩称，瑞典法院不应审理瑞典之外的其他国家的专利侵权案件，依据是该外国专利无效，并指出瑞典法院没有管辖权来决定这些专利在其他国家是否遭到侵权。瑞典法院对此表示认同，并说明其仅能对在瑞典生效的专利侵权行为作出裁决。

In February 2020, BSH sued Electrolux in Sweden (that being where Electrolux’s business is headquartered), claiming that Electrolux had infringed the national parts of their European patent. Electrolux argued that the Swedish court should not hear the case for patent infringement in countries other than Sweden, on the basis that the foreign patents were invalid and that the Swedish courts did not have jurisdiction to decide whether they had been infringed in other countries. The Swedish court agreed and said it could only rule on the infringement of the patent validated in Sweden. 

博西家电对该判决提起上诉，瑞典法院随后将这些管辖权相关的一些问题提交至欧盟法院。

BSH appealed against this decision and the Swedish court referred some questions about these jurisdictional points to the CJEU. 

欧盟法院作出以下重要澄清：

The CJEU provided the following important clarification:

1. 根据《布鲁塞尔条例I bis》第24条第4款，只有授予专利的成员国的法院才有权管辖与该专利注册或有效性相关的任何争议，无论该问题是在其他成员国作为侵权诉讼的诉讼请求提出还是作为抗辩的一部分提出。这是因为专利授权涉及成员国的国家机构，且其法院在适用本国法律方面经验丰富，最适合审理此类案件。

   
   

   Under Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, only the courts of the Member State that grants a patent have jurisdiction to handle any disputes about the registration or validity of that patent, regardless of whether the issue is raised in a claim or as part of a defence in an infringement action in another Member State. This is because granting patents involves a Member State’s national authorities, and their courts which are experienced in applying national laws are the best placed to judge them.

   
   

2. 因此，当被告的欧盟母国法院审理被另一欧盟国家授权的专利的侵权案件时，若被告以专利无效作为抗辩，受诉法院须说明其无权对该专利有效性作出裁决，因为只有授予专利权的欧盟国家的法院才有对此作出判决的专属权利。

   
   

   So, where a court in the defendant’s home EU country is hearing an infringement case about a patent granted by another EU country, and the defendant argues that the patent is invalid, the court must say it does not have the authority to rule on the patent's validity because only the courts in the EU country where the patent was granted have the exclusive right to make that decision.

   
   

3. 然而，上述专属管辖权仅涉及"与专利注册或有效性相关的……"的诉讼程序。因此，对于在其他欧盟国家获得授权的专利的侵权诉讼，被告所在欧盟国家的法院仍有权作出判决，即使被告将专利无效作为其抗辩理由的一部分。

   
   

   However, this exclusive jurisdiction only relates to proceedings “concerned with the registration or validity of patents…”. So, the national courts of EU countries where a defendant is based do have the authority to decide infringement actions relating to patents granted in other EU countries, even if the defendant argues that the patent is invalid as part of their defence.  

   
   

4. 如果审理侵权诉讼的国家法院认为，该专利被另一欧盟成员国的专利主管机构或法院宣告无效存在合理可能性，那么该国家法院可酌情中止侵权诉讼程序，以便在作出侵权判决时可以考虑到该专利在另一欧盟成员国是否被实际宣告无效。但是，审理侵权诉讼的国家法院没有义务必须中止诉讼程序，因为使管辖规则具有可预测性对确保法律确定性而言至关重要。

   
   

   If the national court hearing the infringement action considers that there is a reasonable possibility that the patent will be declared invalid by the patent authorities or courts of another EU Member State, that national court may, where appropriate, suspend the infringement proceedings so that when reaching a decision on infringement it may take account of whether the patent is in fact declared invalid in that other EU Member State. However, the national court hearing the infringement action is under no obligation to suspend the proceedings, since it is important to ensure legal certainty by making the rules of jurisdiction predictable.  

那么在非欧盟成员国授权的知识产权又如何呢？

What about IP rights granted in non-EU Member States?

1. 欧盟法院确认，赋予欧盟国家法院对该国授权专利的有效性拥有专属判决权的这项规定并不适用于欧盟域外的法院。因此，欧盟国家法院不能对例如在英国或土耳其等国家获得授权或生效的欧洲专利的有效性作出判决。

   
   

   The CJEU confirmed that this rule which gives courts in EU countries the exclusive right to decide on the validity of patents granted in their country does not apply to courts outside the EU.  So EU courts cannot decide on the validity of European patents granted or validated in the UK or Turkey for example. 

   
   

2. 如果被告以这些外国专利的有效性作为其抗辩理由的一部分，欧盟国家法院仍然可以评估这些外国专利的有效性，以对侵权问题作出判决。但是，法院在这方面的判决不会影响该专利在该非欧盟国家的存在或内容，也不会导致该国的国家注册被修改。

   
   

   They can still assess the validity of these foreign patents where a defendant raises it as part of their defence, in order to decide the question of infringement.  However the court’s decision in that regard will not affect the existence or content of that patent in that non-EU country or cause the national register of that country to be amended.

欧盟法院此次判决虽针对欧洲专利案件作出，但它适用于所有类型的知识产权的跨境诉讼，包括商标、外观设计和版权。

The CJEU’s decision was given in the context of a European patent case but it applies to cross-border litigation for all types of IP rights - including trade marks, designs and copyright. 

该判决确认，欧盟的国家法院有权对被告为欧盟居民的外国知识产权的侵权作出裁决，即使该知识产权的有效性在其他欧盟国家或欧盟域外的国家受到挑战。尽管这些判决不会影响所涉外国知识产权的有效性，因为确定有效性的管辖权仍属于权利被授予/注册的国家，但是，这会使知识产权持有者能够更容易地通过在一个欧盟成员国提起单个侵权诉讼从而对在欧盟居住的被告行使其权利。

It confirms that national courts in the EU have the authority to rule on the infringement of foreign IP rights by an EU-resident defendant, even where the validity of those rights is being challenged in another EU country or in a country outside the EU. Whilst these decisions will not affect the validity of the foreign IP right in question, as the jurisdiction to determine validity remains with the country in which the right was granted/registered, it should make it easier for owners of IP to enforce their rights against EU-domiciled defendants via a single infringement action in one EU Member State. 

这项判决可能对于寻求在多个司法管辖区行使权利的知识产权持有者意义重大，并创造了向居住在欧盟的被告提起侵权诉讼的新机会，无论涉案专利、商标、外观设计或版权在世界何处获得授权、注册或保护。它还可能导致欧盟成为跨境知识产权纠纷的中心。权利持有者应密切关注欧盟国家法院如何执行欧盟法院的判决，并考虑如何增强其全球品牌保护策略。

This judgment is likely to be significant for IP rights holders seeking to enforce their rights in multiple jurisdictions and creates new opportunities to pursue infringement claims against EU-domiciled defendants, regardless of where in the world the patent, trade mark, design or copyright in issue is granted, registered or protected.  It could also result in the EU becoming a hub for cross-border IP disputes. Rights owners should monitor how the EU courts implement the CJEU’s decision and consider how it might enhance their global brand protection strategy. 

--- 

联系作者 Contact the author

nwelch@marks-clerk.com