EUPillar LG Leipzig, 27.5.2008

Summary

The plaintiff brought an action for a negative declaratory judgment. She wanted the court to declare that the defendant’s patents didn’t prohibit producing, offering, using importing or possessing DVDs by her in Germany. The Regional Court Leipzig refused the action declaring that it didn’t have international jurisdiction. It stated that Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I didn't apply to actions demanding the declaration saying the plaintiff didn’t violate the defendant’s patents. Art. 22 no. 4 Brussels I further wasn’t applicable: the subject matter of the action didn’t concern the question of the validity of patents but in the present case presumed their violation. The denying of the international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I can’t be maintained given the jurisdiction of the CJEU in Folien Fischer & Fofitec/Ritrama (C-133/11) where the CJEU stated that Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision. In the present case the court would have had to initiate a preliminary reference on this question.