## Facts

- Primus and Goldenberg owned a European patent validated in multiple Contracting States.
- They filed a single patent infringement action in the Netherlands against Roche Nederland BV (domiciled in the Netherlands) and other Roche group companies domiciled in other Contracting States.
- Each Roche company was accused of infringing the national part of the same European patent through acts committed in its own State.
- To sue all defendants in the Netherlands, the patentees relied on Brussels Convention Article 6(1), arguing the claims were closely connected because the group acted similarly under a common policy (“spider in the web” theory).
- The foreign Roche companies objected that jurisdiction lay in the courts of each defendant’s domicile and place of alleged infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether Brussels Convention Article 6(1) permits a court to take jurisdiction over multiple defendants domiciled in different Contracting States in a single European patent infringement action, where each defendant allegedly infringed in its own State the national part of the same European patent.
2. Whether alleged coordination within a corporate group under a common policy creates the “close connection” and risk of “irreconcilable judgments” required for Article 6(1).

## Decision

- The Court of Justice held that Article 6(1) does not apply to European patent infringement proceedings against multiple group companies established in different Contracting States for acts committed in one or more of those States, even if they acted identically or similarly under a common policy.
- It reasoned that Article 6(1) is an exception to domicile-based jurisdiction and must be interpreted strictly to preserve predictability and legal certainty.
- It concluded there was no sufficient risk of irreconcilable judgments because the claims did not arise in the same factual and legal situation: the infringements were committed by different defendants in different territories and assessed under different national laws governing the national parts of the European patent.
- It rejected using the “spider in the web” approach to establish co-defendant jurisdiction in this European patent context because any shared factual pattern does not eliminate the differences in applicable national law.
- It noted that validity issues may arise in infringement litigation and that exclusive jurisdiction rules for patent validity support a restrictive approach to consolidating multi-state disputes in a single forum.
- The referring national court was required to resolve the jurisdiction dispute consistent with this interpretation, without aggregating all foreign defendants in the Dutch proceedings via Article 6(1).

## Legal Principles

- Co-defendant jurisdiction under Brussels Convention Article 6(1) requires a close connection such that separate proceedings create a risk of irreconcilable judgments arising from the same factual and legal situation.
- Infringement of the national parts of a European patent in different States, by different defendants, ordinarily involves different applicable national laws and territorial acts, defeating the “same legal and factual situation” requirement.
- Membership in a corporate group and alleged implementation of a common policy do not, without more, justify consolidating multi-state European patent infringement claims under Article 6(1).
- Because Article 6(1) is an exception to domicile-based jurisdiction, it must be applied narrowly to protect legal certainty, predictability, and to limit forum shopping.
- Exclusive jurisdiction principles relating to patent validity support limiting consolidation mechanisms that could indirectly draw validity disputes into an improper forum.

## Conclusion

The Court limited co-defendant jurisdiction for European patent infringement claims, holding that a single forum cannot hear multi-state infringement actions against group companies under Article 6(1) when each defendant’s alleged infringement concerns different national parts of the patent governed by different national laws, even if the conduct was coordinated.


Roche Nederland BV v. Primus, Case C-539/03, 2006 E.C.R. I-6535 (C.J.E.U. 2006)