After Primus-Roche and GAT-LUK

Prof.mr. W.A. Hoyng (Howrey): After Primus-Roche and GAT-LUK.A few remarks about the consequences of these decisions in daily practice.

"(…) We think that GAT-LUK and also the Dutch Supreme Court decision have to be interpreted in such a way that the court can deal with infringement questions as long as it does not rule on the validity. We conclude this from the fact that the court is competent to hear the infringement case and does not need to rule on validity in order to make a decision. This may certainly be the case where a defendant denies that he has committed infringement acts in certain or all countries. Furthermore, many technical non infringement arguments do not necessitate a ruling on validity.

It will be clear that as soon as the infringement question touches upon questions of validity the court could not deal with it. As far as the Gillette or Formstein defense is concerned, this is in our view (in fact) based on invalidity arguments and can therefore not be dealt with by the court.

(…) We therefore conclude the following:

1. Even after GAT-LUK and Primus-Roche, cross-border injunctions remain possible.
2. Such injunctions may be prevented by careful organisation of the sale and distribution of products in Europe;
3. The law in Europe on whether or not a court can grant a pan European injunction in preliminary injunction proceedings has not yet been settled. The position of the Dutch courts that this is possible seems to be correct;
4. It is still not clear what would happen in Europe if an alleged infringer raised invalidity arguments in a case on the merits. A balanced solution as suggested above seems a desirable outcome.”