Article 31

Print this page

1. Where actions come within the exclusive jurisdiction of several courts, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
2. Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the basis of the agreement declares that it has no jurisdiction under the agreement.
3. Where the court designated in the agreement has established jurisdiction in accordance with the agreement, any court of another Member State shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the claimant and the agreement is not valid under a provision contained within those Sections.

 

UPC Case Law

 

IPPT20240917, UPC CoA, Mala v Nokia
A court is to decline jurisdiction only if the proceedings involve the same cause of action and the same parties (Articles 31 and 29 Brussels I recast).  Art. 31 requires that the second court seised establish the jurisdiction of the first court itself, rather than wait for the first court to establish jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 29.  No need to refer a question on the interpretation of Art. 71c(2) or the applicability of Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation to the CJEU. Whether or not the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Art. 71c(2) is correct and Art. 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply, the result is the same.

 

UPC First Instance

 

IPPT20241017, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
Patent revoked in its entirety. Court to examine its international jurisdiction of its own motion. The parties are not the same for the purposes of Articles 29  and 31 Brussels I recast Regulation. The fact that both parties belong to the same group of companies and have the same parent company is insufficient to conclude that their interests are, even though they may be to a large extent aligned, identical and indissociable.