Greece: PI maintained despite non­final ruling on infringement

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

Greece: PI maintained despite non­final ruling on infringement

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, while a main infringement action is pending, the defendant has the right to request that a preliminary injunction, previously granted for the same cause of action and between the same parties, be lifted on the basis of either an error in law or/and of an error in fact.

In a recent judgment regarding a main patent infringement action, the Greek Full Bench Court of First Instance specialised in IP matters maintained a preliminary injunction previously granted by the Single Court of First Instance and set aside the defendant's relevant request on the following grounds:

1) The Full Bench Court appointed experts to address questions on the patent's infringement. In this context, it was held that at this stage of proceedings the Full Bench Court could not overturn the ruling delivered in preliminary injunction proceedings, namely that the patent was valid and infringed. In this regard, it was emphasised that the Full Bench Court was not in a position to rule, either with certainty or with a probability on the patent's infringement, without the technical assistance of the appointed experts.

2) The balance of convenience was in the claimant's favour, as the latter's harm, should the preliminary injunction be lifted, was found to be hardly reversible, as opposed to the harm to be suffered by the defendant if the injunction remained in force.

In this remarkably sophisticated judgment, the injunction granted, survived by having passed a twofold test, as set under (1) and (2) above. In essence, the Court of the main action maintained the injunction because the claimant passed test (1) – the infringement test before the Court in injunction proceedings and test (2) – the balance of convenience test before the Court of the main action.

The Full Bench Court emphasised that it may reassess its position following delivery of the appointed expert's report, even in the form of a nonfinal judgment. This seems to be a stepbystep approach, with no previous case law precedent, that may well safeguard just and fair results in patent litigation that is highly complex in both legal and technical terms.

metaxakis.jpg

Manolis Metaxakis


Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210 7222889info@patrinoskilimiris.comwww.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deborah Kirk discusses why IP and technology have become central pillars in transactions and explains why clients need practically minded lawyers
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
Gift this article