## Facts

- Solvay SA owned a European patent and alleged infringement of the national parts of that patent by multiple Honeywell group companies domiciled in different EU Member States.
- Solvay sued before the District Court of The Hague, seeking relief concerning alleged infringing acts tied to the same product.
- In interim proceedings, Solvay requested provisional relief, including a cross-border prohibition on infringement pending the main action.
- The Honeywell companies raised invalidity of the patent as a defence in the interim proceedings, but did not file separate revocation actions and did not contest the Dutch court’s jurisdiction.
- The Dutch court sought guidance on interpretation of Brussels I (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001), principally Articles 6(1), 22(4), and 31.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 6(1) permits one Member State’s court to hear claims against multiple defendants domiciled in different Member States for alleged infringement of the same national part of a European patent, where separate actions might produce irreconcilable judgments.
2. Whether Article 22(4)’s exclusive jurisdiction for proceedings concerned with patent validity precludes a court from granting provisional measures under Article 31 when validity is raised only as a defence in interim proceedings.

## Decision

- The CJEU held that a multi-defendant scenario involving alleged infringement of the same national part of a European patent, connected to the same product, is capable of producing “irreconcilable judgments” for purposes of Article 6(1).
- The CJEU stated that the referring national court must assess, on the facts, whether the requisite risk of irreconcilable judgments exists.
- The CJEU held that Article 22(4) does not preclude application of Article 31 in such circumstances.
- Accordingly, a court may order provisional, including protective, measures under Article 31 even where patent validity is invoked as a defence in interim proceedings, without deciding validity on the merits reserved to courts with exclusive jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6(1) joinder turns on whether separate proceedings risk conflicting outcomes arising in the same situation of fact and law; that risk can exist where multiple defendants are accused of infringing the same national patent right through acts concerning the same product.
- Exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(4) applies to proceedings whose principal subject matter is patent registration or validity; it is interpreted strictly.
- Raising invalidity as an incidental defence in interim infringement proceedings does not, by itself, transform those proceedings into validity proceedings within Article 22(4).
- Article 31 permits provisional measures by a court even if another Member State’s courts have jurisdiction over the substance, provided the interim relief does not usurp the exclusive merits determination reserved by Article 22(4).

## Conclusion

The CJEU clarified that Brussels I may allow consolidation of multi-defendant European patent infringement disputes under Article 6(1) when the same national patent part and the same product are at issue, and that exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity under Article 22(4) does not bar provisional measures under Article 31 when validity is raised only as a defence.


Solvay SA v. Honeywell Fluorine Prods. Eur. B.V., Case C-616/10 (C.J.E.U. 2012)