Agrégateur de flux

Verein für Konsumenteninformation
Rapprochement des législations
Avocat général Szpunar : Deutsche Bahn ne peut exiger des clients souhaitant acheter un billet de transport en ligne en payant par prélèvement d’être domicilié en Allemagne

Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego
Agriculture
L’utilisation de signes figuratifs évoquant l’aire géographique à laquelle est liée une appellation d’origine protégée (AOP) peut constituer une évocation illicite de celle-ci

Une juridiction d’un État membre n’est pas compétente pour connaître d’un litige relatif à un recours indemnitaire, suite au retard d’un vol, dirigé contre une compagnie aérienne établie sur le territoire d’un autre État membre, au motif que cette compagnie dispose, dans le ressort de la juridiction saisie, d’une succursale, sans que celle-ci ait pris part à la relation juridique entre la compagnie et le passager concerné.

en lire plus

In [2019] EWCA Civ 38 Huawei v Conversant Wireless (on appeal from [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat) the Court of Appeal considered whether in the event of 2 defendants being UK based (the others domiciled in China) the UK courts may relinquish jurisdiction reflexively to honour Article 24(4) Brussels Ia’s exclusive jurisdictional rule for the validity of patents.

Neither Article 33’s lis alibi pendens or Article 34’s ‘forum non conveniens’ rule were discussed.

Huawei China and ZTE China have commenced proceedings in China against Conversant, seeking to establish invalidity and (in the case of Huawei China only) non-infringement of Conversant’s Chinese patents. Conversant have inter alia sued Huawei China and ZTE China in Germany for infringement of its German patents.

Following Owusu, jurisdiction for infringement of UK patents against UK incorporated companies must lie and remain with the English courts per Article 4 B1a. As readers will remember from my review of Ferrexpo, the English courts for some time however have noticed with relish that the CJEU in Owusu did not entertain the part of the referral which asked it whether exclusive jurisdictional rules may apply reflexively – holding thereafter in the CJEU’s stead that they might so do (in a discretionary: not a slavish fashion: Floyd J here at 115).

At 95 ff Floyd J discusses the issues after having summarised the various representations made (see a summary of the summary by John de Rohan-Truba here), with much of the discussion turning on English CPR and jurisdictional rules, and reflexive application of Article 24(4) confirmed in principle, but not applied here. Requests to refer to the CJEU were summarily dismissed.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.7, Heading 2.2.9.5.