If the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction over those proceedings, that reversal automatically also excludes its jurisdiction over the claims made by the intervening third party.

When a Community design court hears, under Article 82(5) of Regulation No 6/2002, an infringement action concerning acts committed or threatened in a single Member State, it must decide supplementary claims for damages, information, documents and accounts, and delivery up of the infringing products for destruction under the law of the Member State where the alleged infringing acts were committed or threatened. In an action brought under Article 82(5), that is the law of the Member State where the court is situated.

In Article 8(2) of the Rome II Regulation, the "country in which the act of infringement was committed" is the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred. Where the same defendant is accused of various acts of infringement in various Member States, that country must be identified by an overall assessment of that defendant's conduct to determine where the initial act of infringement at the origin of that conduct was committed or threatened, not by examining each alleged act of infringement separately.