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

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

Firms explain the IP concerns that can arise amid attempts by brands to show off their ‘Canadianness’ to consumers
Counsel say they will be monitoring issues such as the placement of house marks, and how Mondelēz demonstrates a likelihood of confusion in its dispute with Aldi
The EUIPO expanding its mediation services and a new Riyadh office for Simmons & Simmons were also among the top talking points this week
David Boundy explains why Pierson Ferdinand provides a platform that will allow him to use administrative law to address IP concerns
Developments included an anti-anti-suit injunction being granted for the first time, and the court clarifying that it can adjudicate over alleged infringements that occurred before June 2023
Griffith Hack’s Amanda Stark, one of our ‘Top 250 Women in IP’, explains how peer support from male colleagues is crucial, and reveals why the life sciences sector is thriving
The case, which could offer clarity on the training of AI models within the context of copyright law, will go to trial in the UK next week
CMS IndusLaw co-founder Suneeth Katarki says he plans to hire a patent team in India and argues that IP should play a major role within full-service firms
Partners at the firm explain why they’ve seen more SEP cases at the ITC, and why they are comfortable recommending the forum to clients
The association, which will head to London in 2026, hosted its flagship event in the Californian city in 2005, 2015 and 2025
Gift this article