With a rapid technology development it becomes easier for individuals to share their personal data. However, this also increases the processing of personal data and the risks of infringements of data protection. With an increasing globalisation the infringements of data protection frequently takes on cross border dimensions making it harder to determine where actions can be brought to enforce the data subject’s data protection rights. This thesis examines the possible ways of interpreting the rule of jurisdiction found in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Furthermore this thesis investigates the relationship between the GDPR and the Brussels Recast Regulation regarding international jurisdiction over infringements of data protection. After analysing judgements of the court of justice of the European Union and the scope and aims of the Regulations, the general conclusion in the thesis is that both the GDPR and the Brussels Recast Regulation can be applicable on infringements of data protection, provided that the data subject always has the opportunity to bring an action according to the jurisdictional rule of the GDPR. However, there are a lot of uncertainties that demand for an answer. These uncertainties for instance includes the question if, and in that case how, jurisdictional agreements for data privacy is allowed.

This thesis examines the special head of jurisdiction for contractual matters in Article 7(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Particularly, the thesis aims to establish how the concept ‘matters relating to a contract’ is understood for the purposes of Article 7(1). In applying Article 7(1), the seized court must first determine whether the contract is one for the sale of goods or for the provision of services, for which the rule provides autonomously defined places of performance in subparagraph (b). If not, the court has to identify the obligation forming the basis of the legal proceedings for the purposes of subparagraph (a). Subsequently, the court has to apply its rules of conflict of laws rules and determine the place of performance for that obligation in accordance with the designated law. As regards ‘matters relating to a contract’, this expression is the point of departure for the application of Article 7(1) and has an autonomous definition. Essentially, ‘contract’ refers to a situation in which there is an obligation freely assumed by one party towards another. The thesis examines how this definition operates to characterize claims or rights arising out of representation, assignments, pre-contractual dealings and company law. Furthermore, the thesis examines the requirement that the matter must be one ‘relating to’ a contract, with special notice to two recent CJEU cases concerning the identity of the parties to the contract vis-à-vis the parties to the dispute. In conclusion, it is submitted that the CJEU’s expansion and application of the autonomous concept of contract do not necessarily serve the objective of predictability, which ultimately risks impeding the facilitation of the sound administration of justice.

This thesis examines problems concerning international standard-essential patent licensing disputes within the EU from a private international law perspective. Furthermore, it seeks to analyse the jurisdictional rules which are established by the Brussels Ia Regulation when applied to cross-border SEP licensing disputes. The backdrop for the present study is the system of international standardisation and the licensing of those patents which are essential to the implementation of a technical standard. It is primarily concerned with EU law as it relates to technical standardisation in the field of telecommunications, since it plays a significant role in today’s global information society. As a rule, SEP holders make a commitment to license their essential patents according to terms which are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). In order to fulfil the aim of the thesis, the legal nature of such a FRAND commitment has been examined, finding that it should be characterised as an enforceable contract for the benefit of third parties. Patent rights have traditionally been thought of as territorial in nature, which raises questions regarding the possibilities for cross-border enforcement, as well as how the rules on jurisdiction should be applied by national courts in the EU when faced with international disputes where the subject matter is considered to be, to an extent, territorially bound. One of the fundamental questions that arise out of this is how, in the context of SEP licensing, the legal framework for SEP disputes affects the application of the jurisdictional rules in cross-border cases. As a consequence of the lack of harmonisation as well as legal regulation and guidance relating to SEP licensing, individual courts in Europe have developed their own distinct approaches and methodologies in SEP disputes. There is a risk that this lack of uniformity leads not only to greater legal uncertainty, but also widespread patent litigation. In particular, recent case law from Germany and the United Kingdom has been influential in creating a precedent that national courts are able to set FRAND licensing terms which are global in scope. This has led to certain courts taking a more active approach in international SEP disputes—even if they concern foreign patents—granting injunctions which in some cases seek to limit the jurisdiction of foreign courts. It seems to follow from this that a ‘race to the courthouse’ is to be expected in SEP disputes, which is further facilitated by the ample room for forum shopping that exists in the Brussels Ia Regulation. Lastly, the thesis also deals, in part, with the new unitary patent system, as well as the Unified Patent Court and the question of how the UPC may come to affect the future of SEP disputes within the EU. Appropriate solutions to the identified problems are discussed, favouring either a concentration of SEP litigation to one forum, or the development of guiding principles so as to increase legal certainty.