EUPillar BGH, 8.5.2014 – III ZR 371/12

Summary

The parties both produced housings for electric systems. The plaintiff was seated in Denmark and the defendant was seated in India. They argued about patent infringement claims. The plaintiff claimed for damages from rights which had been transferred to him by the patent holder. It was doubtful whether the plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement concluded by the patent holder. The court therefore had to assess the effects of the arbitration agreement towards a third party. The court stated the international jurisdiction of German courts under national law (§32 ZPO). The court further held that the issue whether the arbitration agreement concluded by the assignor was relevant for the assignee was to be considered under the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. The court referred to the analogous application of Art 14 (2) Rome I Regulation. It stated that pursuant to Art 1 (2) (e) Rome I the Regulation did not apply to arbitration agreements. However, the ratio behind the Regulation’s provisions could be transferred to the current arbitration proceeding. The court found that Art 14 (2) Rome I was based on the principle that a contractual relation’s content could not be modified by an assignment of one of the claims resulting from it. This lead to the conclusion that the relevant law in general maintained the same.