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 2025

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

With the US privacy landscape more fragmented and active than ever and federal legislation stalled, lawyers at Sheppard Mullin explain how states are taking bold steps to define their own regimes
Viji Krishnan of Corsearch unpicks the results of a survey that reveals almost 80% of trademark practitioners believe in a hybrid AI model for trademark clearance and searches
News of Via Licensing Alliance selling its HEVC/VCC pools and a $1.5 million win for Davis Polk were also among the top talking points
The winner of a high-profile bidding war for Warner Bros Discovery may gain a strategic advantage far greater than mere subscriber growth - IP licensing leverage
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Varuni Paranavitane of Finnegan and IP counsel Lisa Ribes compare and contrast two recent AI copyright decisions from Germany and the UK
Exclusive in-house data uncovered by Managing IP reveals French firms underperform on providing value equivalent to billing costs and technology use
The new court has drastically changed the German legal market, and the Munich-based firm, with two recent partner hires, is among those responding
Consultation feedback on mediation and arbitration rules and hires for Marks & Clerk and Heuking were also among the major talking points
Nick Groombridge shares how an accidental turn into patent law informed his approach to building a practice based on flexibility and balancing client and practitioner needs
Gift this article