Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 JUNE 2005

Cross-Border Injunctions. Where Are We And Where Should We Go?

It is now 20 years ago that I argued for the first time in <I>Monsanto v DSM </I>that a Dutch Court could grant an injunction, which later became known as a cross-border (the better name) or pan-European injunction.</

United KingdomIntellectual Property
William Hoyng
William Hoyng

It is now 20 years ago that I argued for the first time in Monsanto v DSM that a Dutch Court could grant an injunction, which later became known as a cross-border (the better name) or pan-European injunction.

Many other countries of the EU, including Germany, France and Italy, have now accepted the view that Article 2 of the Brussels Convention (EEX) (now Regulation 44/2004) and Article 2 of the Lugano Convention (EVEX) give a national court jurisdiction over a defendant established in the territory of that court and the ability to deal with infringements of patents by that defendant in other EU or EVEX countries.

In Primus v Roche, the District Court of The Hague and then the Court of Appeal held the following (as summarized by the Dutch Supreme Court in its decision of 19 December 2003):

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from