EUPillar Altana Pharma AG v. Eurofarma Laboratorois Ltda, Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Korea United Pharm Inc

Summary

In as much as the alleged infringement of the applicant’s patent has been repeatedly established, during annual international fairs, the risk of it being repeated is justification for the present dispute to be dealt with in summary proceedings, due to the fact that a proceeding on the merits cannot give a satisfactory response within a reasonable deadline. In as much as “prima facie” the rights deriving from the patent may be considered as valid and in as much as the defendant has distributed, i.e. at an international fair of Brussels, a brochure describing a product which breaches the claimed rights in the patent, a provisional measure forbidding the commercialisation is justified. In as much as the risk of a breach is apparently related to international fairs which are organised in different states covered by the claimed European patent, and in as much as Belgium represents at this point the main connecting factor with the dispute (the last fair took place in Brussels), the president of the court of first instance rules that she is competent, on the basis of article 31 of Regulation EC 44/2001, to order a transnational injunction extended to all the countries designated by the European patent. Even if the defendants are not domiciled in a European Member State, Art. 31 is applicable since it is an autonomous basis for establishing jurisdiction, independent from Art. 4(1) Brussels I Regulation, in as much as it is evident that the dispute falls within the material scope of the Regulation.