## Facts

- LuK held a French patent covering a mechanical damper spring used in motor-vehicle technology.
- GAT entered a supply arrangement involving damper springs that LuK asserted fell within its French patent.
- GAT sued in a German court (Landgericht Düsseldorf) seeking a declaration of non-infringement of LuK’s French patent.
- In support of non-infringement, GAT argued the French patent was invalid, inviting the German court to assess validity at least indirectly.
- The Landgericht assumed jurisdiction over the validity-related questions and dismissed GAT’s claim on the merits.
- On appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf questioned whether Article 16(4) of the 1968 Brussels Convention required exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of the state of registration (France) whenever patent validity is in issue.
- The Oberlandesgericht stayed proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the scope of Article 16(4).

## Issues

1. Whether Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention applies only to actions directly seeking a ruling on a patent’s registration or validity, or also to proceedings where validity is raised incidentally (including in non-infringement or infringement disputes).
2. Whether Article 16(4) applies when validity is raised as a defense or objection rather than as a claim for invalidity.
3. Whether a court in one contracting state may adjudicate a non-infringement action involving a foreign patent if resolving the case would require (even indirectly) a determination of that patent’s validity.

## Decision

- The Court of Justice interpreted Article 16(4) broadly to cover all proceedings in which patent validity is put in issue, regardless of whether the issue arises by claim, defense, objection, or at a later stage of the litigation.
- The courts of the state of registration have exclusive jurisdiction whenever validity is contested; other contracting-state courts may not rule on the validity of that foreign patent even incidentally.
- The interpretation was grounded in the mandatory nature of exclusive jurisdiction, the need for predictable jurisdictional rules, and the objective of avoiding conflicting decisions.
- The case was returned to the referring court to apply this interpretation to the pending German proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings “concerned with the registration or validity of patents” lies with the courts of the state where the patent is registered.
- Article 16(4) applies whenever validity is challenged, irrespective of the procedural form (claim, counterclaim, defense, or objection) and irrespective of when the validity issue is raised.
- National courts outside the registration state may not circumvent exclusive jurisdiction by addressing patent validity indirectly within infringement or non-infringement litigation.
- The Brussels Convention’s jurisdiction rules prioritize predictability and legal certainty and aim to reduce the risk of irreconcilable judgments across contracting states.

## Conclusion

The Court of Justice held that, under Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention, any dispute requiring a determination of a patent’s validity—whether raised directly or as a defense—falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the patent’s state of registration, preventing other contracting-state courts from deciding validity even incidentally.


Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG v. Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG, Case C-4/03, 2006 E.C.R. I-6509 (C.J.E.U. 2006)