Court rules on burden of proof in patented process case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Court rules on burden of proof in patented process case

burden-min-final.jpg

The reversal of burden of proof in civil proceedings concerning the enforcement of rights for patents for processes is a provision that exists in the laws of many countries, including Greece.

The same provision is included in Article 34 of TRIPS. This gives judicial authorities the power to order the defendants to prove that their process is not infringing.

The defendant's burden of proof is laid down in Article 17 Paragraph 6 of Law 1733/87, which provides that "if the invention relates to a process for the manufacture of a product, each product of the same nature is presumed to have been manufactured according to the protected process."

Article 34 of TRIPS imposes an additional condition for the infringement presumption to apply. In order for this to apply, the product obtained by the patented process must be new.

The issue of which conditions should apply for the reversal of burden of proof to be ordered was examined in a recent judgment from the Athens Single Member Court of First Instance hearing a preliminary injunction application based on a patent with process claims. In these proceedings, the patentee was relying on the reversal of burden of proof as regards infringement of the patented process. The defendant objected, arguing that the reversal of burden of proof cannot apply under the circumstances, since the product obtained under the process was not new. The objection was based on Article 34.1a of TRIPS and the defendant argued that these provisions of TRIPS overrule the broader provisions of national law.

The court rejected the objection and found the national law provisions applicable. In its judgment it referred to CJEU judgment C-414/11 and ruled that, in view of this judgment, TRIPS does not have a direct effect on the member states, given that the rules of the TRIPS Agreement fall within the meaning of "commercial aspects of intellectual property" and by extension, the "common commercial policy" and fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, based on the provisions of TFEU Articles 3.1(e) and 207.1.

kilimiris-constantinos.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


Patrinos & Kilimiris

7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.

GR-11528 Athens

Greece

Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050

Fax: +30210 7222889

info@patrinoskilimiris.com

www.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
While individual lateral hires and full-scale mergers remain popular options to scale a firm’s IP practice, recent activity indicates that a third option is proving successful
Lead King & Spalding trial lawyer says that while this is the first IP litigation defence victory for DoorDash, it certainly won’t be the last
Gift this article