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

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article