CJEU expands jurisdiction in cross-border patent infringement cases with BSH–Electrolux decision

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

CJEU expands jurisdiction in cross-border patent infringement cases with BSH–Electrolux decision

Sponsored by

gunpartners-400px.png
Court of Justice of the European Union.jpg

Selin Sinem Erciyas and Beste Turan Kurtoğlu of Gün + Partners analyse a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that could reshape patent litigation strategies and increase competition between international courts

On February 25 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a groundbreaking judgment in the patent infringement case between BSH Hausgeräte GmbH and Electrolux AB, marking a significant ruling not only in Europe but worldwide. This decision is expected to pave the way for the expansion of jurisdiction in patent cases in EU member states and increase competition among courts in the international arena.

Background to the case

The dispute was brought before the CJEU as a preliminary ruling procedure and concerns a patent infringement action filed by BSH against Electrolux before a Swedish domestic court. In this infringement action, BSH alleged that Electrolux infringed national parts of a European patent relating to vacuum cleaner technology that had been validated in various EU member states, including Sweden, and in Turkey (officially Türkiye).

In its defence, Electrolux claimed that the relevant patent was invalid and argued that, in infringement actions where patent invalidity is asserted as a defence, infringement and invalidity cannot be dissociated and that the courts of the states and Turkey in which those patents are validated have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The Swedish domestic court, in its decision dated December 21 2020, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over patent infringement proceedings concerning national patents in other EU member states and in Turkey that were obtained by validating a European patent.

BSH appealed this decision before a Swedish court of appeal, claiming that the Swedish courts would also have jurisdiction over infringement proceedings relating to national patents validated in other EU member states and in Turkey. The Swedish court of appeal requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on whether the Swedish courts would have jurisdiction in a dispute concerning the infringement of validations of a European patent in the member states and in Turkey.

The CJEU’s decision and its implications for patent owners

In its judgment, the CJEU determined that the court of the EU member state in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement action concerning a patent granted in another EU member state or in a state other than an EU member state, even if the defendant challenges the validity of the patent subject to that action. In this context, the CJEU’s rendering enables infringement actions in relation to validated European patents, and that have entered the national phase in Turkey, to be brought before the courts of EU member states, if the defendant has a domicile in that EU member state.

As a result, it is predicted that this decision of the CJEU will provide patent owners with a wider range of options regarding the choice of jurisdiction in multinational patent disputes, leading to competition among states, and will fundamentally change the strategies for international patent litigation.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article