BSH Hausgeräte has secured a significant victory at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Grand Chamber under president Koen Lenaerts ruled that courts in EU member states have jurisdiction over infringement of European patent parts not validated in Sweden. This applies even when defendants claim those parts may be invalid. The ruling centres on Article 24 Nr. 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, though this does not apply to non-EU patents (case ID: C-339/22).
博西家电（BSH Hausgeräte）在欧盟法院（CJEU）取得了一场重大胜利。由科恩·莱纳茨（Koen Lenaerts）院长领导的大法庭裁定，欧盟成员国的法院对在瑞典未获生效确认的欧洲专利部分的侵权行为拥有管辖权。即使被告声称这些部分可能无效，这一规定同样适用。该裁决围绕《布鲁塞尔一号规约》（Brussels Ibis Regulation）第24条第4款展开，不过这并不适用于非欧盟专利（案件编号：C-339/22） 。
This morning, the President of the Ninth Chamber of the CJEU, Niilo Jääskinen, delivered the judgment in this high-profile patent dispute. The court’s rapporteur was Octavia Spineanu-Matei.The judges ruled that Article 24/4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation allows courts in EU member states where a defendant is domiciled to hear infringement actions, even when the patent was granted in another member state and the defendant has challenged its validity. While the case primarily concerns a European patent validated in several EPO states, the judges clarified that national courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity.
今天上午，CJEU第九法庭庭长尼洛·亚斯凯宁（Niilo Jääskinen）对这起备受瞩目的专利纠纷案件作出了判决。该案的报告员是奥克塔维娅·斯皮内亚努-马泰（Octavia Spineanu-Matei）。法官们裁定，《布鲁塞尔一号规约》第24条第4款允许被告住所地所在的欧盟成员国法院审理侵权诉讼，即便该专利是在另一个成员国获批的，且被告对该专利的有效性提出了质疑。虽然这起案件主要涉及在多个欧洲专利局成员国生效确认的一项欧洲专利，但法官们明确指出，各国法院对专利有效性仍拥有专属管辖权。
Ⅰ.Courts can consider validity in infringement
法院在审理侵权案件时可考量专利有效性
The judgment states that “the regulation does not apply to a court of a third country”. This means EU courts cannot rule on the validity of European patents in non-EU EPO member states.
该判决指出，“本条例不适用于第三国的法院”。这意味着欧盟法院无权对非欧盟的欧洲专利局成员国境内的欧洲专利的有效性作出裁决。
Nevertheless, EU courts can still decide on patent infringement matters involving third countries. The ruling explains, “Where a court of a Member State is seised of proceedings for infringement of a patent granted or validated in a third country on the basis of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, in the course of which the question of the validity of the patent is raised by way of a plea, the EU court has jurisdiction.”
尽管如此，欧盟法院仍可以对涉及第三国的专利侵权事宜作出裁决。该裁决解释称：“当某一欧盟成员国的法院依据《布鲁塞尔一号规约》受理有关在第三国获批或生效确认的专利的侵权诉讼，且在诉讼过程中，通过抗辩的方式提出了该专利的有效性问题时，欧盟法院拥有管辖权。”
This means EU courts can assess the validity of European patents in third countries to determine infringement issues. However, their decisions will “affect neither the existence nor content of the patent in that third country nor result in any amendment to the national register of the third country”.
这意味着欧盟法院可以评估第三国境内欧洲专利的有效性，以判定侵权问题。然而，其作出的裁决 “既不会影响该第三国境内专利的存续状况或内容，也不会导致对该第三国的国家专利登记簿进行任何修改”。
Ⅱ.Wider implications for jurisdiction
对管辖权的更广泛影响
With today’s judgment, the CJEU follows the second opinion of Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou in the case, published last September. The court typically aligns with the Advocate General’s views.
通过今天的判决，CJEU采纳了总法律顾问尼古拉斯·埃米利奥（Nicholas Emiliou）在去年九月就此案发表的第二种意见。该法院通常会与总法律顾问的观点保持一致。
The patent community followed the proceedings closely. The ruling means the UPC or national courts in EU countries can now decide on infringements of patents of those states that are not in the EU but are members of the EPO. This could apply to Turkey or Switzerland but also for the UK, for example.
专利界密切关注着这一诉讼程序。该裁决意味着，如今统一专利法院（UPC）或欧盟国家的各国法院可以对那些虽不属于欧盟但却是欧洲专利局成员国的国家的专利侵权案件作出裁决。这可以适用于土耳其、瑞士或英国等。
The ruling marks a shift from the CJEU’s GAT vs. LuK decision of 2006. Under that precedent, a cross-border injunction was blocked if defendants challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit. According to early analysis from experts, today’s ruling takes the opposite approach.
该裁决标志着CJEU的立场相较于其在2006年对“GAT诉LuK”一案的判决有所转变。根据此前的这一判例，如果被告对涉案专利的有效性提出质疑，那么跨境禁令就会被阻止。根据专家的初步分析，如今的这一裁决采取了相反的做法。
The ruling could strengthen the Unified Patent Court’s power to decide on infringement issues in non-UPC countries. However, central revocation actions at the new court against parts of European patents from third countries are likely to remain outside its remit.
这一裁决可能会增强统一专利法院在裁定非统一专利法院体系国家的专利侵权问题上的权力。然而，在这家新法院针对来自第三国的欧洲专利的部分内容提起的集中撤销诉讼，很可能仍不在其职权范围之内。
The judgment stems from a Swedish referral. BSH and Electrolux have been fighting in Germany and Sweden since 2007. BSH’s infringement action in Sweden covers the German, Austrian, Spanish, French, UK, Italian, Dutch, Greek, and Turkish parts of EP 1 434 512, which protects vacuum cleaning technology. Electrolux had filed nullity suits against EP 512 in several countries, including Germany.
该判决源于瑞典方面的案件移送。自2007年以来，博西家电和伊莱克斯一直在德国和瑞典进行诉讼。博西家电在瑞典提起的侵权诉讼涉及欧洲专利EP 1 434 512中涵盖德国、奥地利、西班牙、法国、英国、意大利、荷兰、希腊和土耳其的部分，该专利保护的是真空清洁技术。伊莱克斯已在包括德国在内的多个国家针对EP 512专利提起了无效诉讼。
In the Swedish case, BSH seeks damages for past infringement in Sweden and nine other countries where the patent was valid, citing Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Electrolux argued for dismissal regarding foreign parts of EP 512, questioning their validity.
在这起瑞典的案件中，博西家电援引《布鲁塞尔一号规约》第4条第1款，就过去在瑞典以及该专利有效的其他九个国家所遭受的侵权行为要求获得损害赔偿。伊莱克斯主张驳回涉及欧洲专利EP 512国外部分的诉求，并对这些部分的有效性提出了质疑。
Ⅲ.Swedish court can continue
瑞典法院可以继续
After a first-instance court denied jurisdiction over non-Swedish parts of EP 512, BSH appealed. The Swedish Court of Appeal referred the question to the CJEU in May 2022.
在一审法院拒绝受理对欧洲专利EP 512中不属于瑞典部分的案件管辖权后，博西家电提出了上诉。2022年5月，瑞典上诉法院将该问题提交给了CJEU。
Following Emiliou’s first opinion in February 2024, the CJEU decided to hear the case before the Grand Chamber — a step reserved for exceptionally important cases. This necessitated Emiliou’s second opinion in September 2024. The Swedish Court of Appeal can now continue proceedings on the jurisdictional challenge.
在总法律顾问埃米利奥于2024年2月发表了他的第一份意见后，CJEU决定由大法庭审理此案——这一举措通常仅适用于极其重要的案件。正因如此，埃米利奥在2024年9月发表了他的第二份意见。现在，瑞典上诉法院可以继续就管辖权异议展开诉讼程序。
Nevertheless, Stockholm’s Patent and Trademark Court heard BSH’s infringement case against Electrolux regarding the Swedish part of EP 512 last September, excluding the nine patent parts central to the CJEU proceedings. The court then decided that BSH’s patent is invalid in Sweden and also denied infringement by Electrolux. BSH has since appealed to the Court of Appeal.
尽管如此，斯德哥尔摩专利与商标法院去年9月审理了博西家电针对伊莱克斯就欧洲专利EP 512中瑞典部分提起的侵权诉讼，不包括CJEU诉讼所涉及的关键的九个专利部分。随后，该法院判定博西家电的专利在瑞典无效，同时也驳回了伊莱克斯存在侵权行为的主张。自那以后，博西家电已向上诉法院提起了上诉。
Ⅳ.German case continues
德国案件仍在继续
In Germany, disputes between the two companies remain ongoing. Following extended litigation, the German Federal Court of Justice upheld EP 512 in its entirety (case ID: X ZR 19/21).
在德国，这两家公司之间的纠纷仍在持续。经过长时间的诉讼，德国联邦最高法院维持了欧洲专利EP 512的全部有效性（案件编号：X ZR 19/21）。
This allowed the Düsseldorf Regional and Higher Regional Courts to proceed with two infringement claims against Electrolux’s vacuum cleaners. One case concerned older models, while a newer case regarding more recent models is pending at Düsseldorf Regional Court. Both proceedings required expert testimony.
这使得杜塞尔多夫地区法院和杜塞尔多夫高等地区法院能够继续处理针对伊莱克斯吸尘器的两项侵权指控。其中一个案件涉及较旧的型号，而另一个关于更新型号的案件目前正在杜塞尔多夫地区法院审理中。这两起诉讼程序均需要专家证人的证词。