At the 14th IP and Competition Forum, the panel “Long-Arm Jurisdiction in Patent Disputes after BSH v. Electrolux” examined whether cross-border patent jurisdiction is becoming a tool of efficiency — or a source of new litigation pressure.
The panel was moderated by partners from DLA Piper and Freshfields. Speakers included senior in-house patent and litigation counsel from HP, Nokia, and Giesecke+Devrient.
The discussion centred on the CJEU’s judgment in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. The ruling allows an EU court, in certain circumstances, to hear infringement claims concerning foreign patents, even where validity is raised as a defence. For some, this promises efficiency. For others, it raises serious concerns about jurisdictional overreach.
The mood of the panel was strikingly sceptical. One German in-house speaker warned that German companies may now be “really punished” if the Munich court pushes long-arm jurisdiction to an extreme. The companies most likely to suffer, he suggested, are not global giants, but German mid-sized businesses facing expanded litigation pressure at home.
The Munich judges, for their part, urged market participants to give the Court some time and watch how the case law develops. That “wait and see” message, however, did not remove the concern in the room.
What made the debate particularly interesting was that neither implementers nor patent owners seemed enthusiastic about the development. For once, the technology sector seemed broadly aligned.
If a company wants truly transnational patent litigation, the obvious forum is the UPC. Against that background, using national German courts to reach across borders may look less like efficient case management and more like judicial overreach.
That makes the development something of a slap in the face for those who expected Munich’s approach to be welcomed as a patent-owner-friendly move. The panel suggested the opposite: even patent owners may hesitate if the result is greater uncertainty, more procedural complexity, and a jurisdictional race that no one fully controls.
The broader question after BSH v. Electrolux is therefore not simply whether courts can hear more cross-border patent disputes. It is whether they should — and whether national courts are the right place to do so when the UPC already offers a transnational framework.
The panel showed that long-arm jurisdiction is no longer a technical procedural issue. It has become a strategic question about forum choice, litigation pressure, and the proper limits of national courts in global patent disputes.
Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.