The Netherlands: The Hague Court declines jurisdiction in Pfizer v Ono

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The Netherlands: The Hague Court declines jurisdiction in Pfizer v Ono

In a recent ruling by the Court of The Hague C/09/545302 / KG ZA 17-1636, Pfizer and Ono faced each other over an alleged abuse of German process law by Pfizer.

In short, Ono wished to put an end to what it views as the unlawful stalling, by Pfizer, of the grant of its patent application EP2206517 A1. Through this application Ono seeks to protect immunopotentiating compositions comprising anti-pd-l1 antibodies.

Pfizer started a reclamation procedure in Germany in order to obtain co-owner-ship of EP'517. However, Pfizer filed the reclamation procedure after previously having filed third party observations against the patent application. The latter was put forward as proof by Ono that Pfizer had no stake in EP'517, which would make the reclamation procedure unlawful. The reclamation procedure resulted in a suspension of the grant procedure of EP'517 by the European Patent Office (EPO). Subsequently, Pfizer also failed to comply with Ono's request to cooperate in ending the suspension of the grant procedure. Accordingly, Ono claimed that Pfizer had acted wrongfully towards Ono, which wished to maintain EP'517 in the Netherlands among other countries.

Ono primarily demanded that Pfizer be compelled to instruct the EPO to resume the grant procedure of EP'517. The subsidiary demand sought to make Pfizer withdraw its reclamation procedure and forbid it from filing a new reclamation procedure before EP'517 is granted.

The court observed that the US-based Pfizer does not have an address within the European Union. Accordingly, competency of the court must derive from Article 6 Brussels I bis-Vo in combination with the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rechtsverordeningen, Rv). In layman's terms, cause (locus actus) or damages (locus damni) must have occurred in Dutch jurisdiction for the court to be competent.

The court did not accept Ono's plea that damages occured within Dutch jurisdiction due to an inability to enforce EP'517 in the Netherlands as a result of the suspension.

The court was of the opinion that the apparent desire of Ono to enforce EP'517 after grant, if so desired, in the Netherlands, is not substantial enough to render the court competent. In line with this reasoning the court declined jurisdiction.

Ferdinand Leeger


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article