The Netherlands: Court rules on remedies for contributory infringement in Europe

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

The Netherlands: Court rules on remedies for contributory infringement in Europe

A Dutch court issued decisions in two court actions that illustrate the remedies that are available from the Dutch courts in cases of contributory infringement. The court found that it had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction on offering and supplying a contributorily infringing product inside and outside the Netherlands, also against a non-Dutch party. The patent acts throughout Europe were essentially identical on contributory infringement. However, the court held that patent law excluded an injunction on holding a contributorily infringing product in stock.

In Rasco v AEBI Schmidt (Court of The Hague, January 4 2017), Rasco supplied a detachable salt spreader for use on trucks to de-ice roads. AEBI Schmidt asserted that trucks with such a detachable salt spreader infringed its patent. The court found contributory infringement, because it considered the salt spreaders to be "essential components" in the sense of contributory infringement law, and ordered a recall. However, the court held that holding in stock of such essential components, which contributorily infringed but had not been patented themselves, was not prohibited by Dutch patent law: patent law only prohibited offering and supplying such products.

In DSM v Univar and Novozymes (Court of The Hague, January 6 2017), the patent claimed a process to produce a dairy product using a previously known lactase preparation. The Danish company Novozymes manufactured the lactase preparation. The Dutch company Univar was Novozymes' exclusive co-distributor for Europe. The Dutch court found that it has jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction inside and outside the Netherlands against Univar, because it was a Dutch company, and also against Novozymes, because the action concerned the same product. The product had a substantial non-infringing use, but evidence showed that Univar and Novozymes induced infringement. Accordingly, the injunction was limited to offering/supplying the lactase preparation for use in the patented invention.

Lars de Haas


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Plasseraud IP says it is eyeing AI and quantum computing expertise with new hire from Cabinet Netter
In the fifth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the ‘Careers in Ideas’ network and how to open access to the profession
McGuireWoods’ focussed experimentation and disciplined execution of AI tools is sharpening its IP practice
As Marshall Gerstein celebrates its 70-year anniversary, Jeffrey Sharp, managing partner, reflects on lessons that shaped both his career and the firm’s success
News of two pharma deals involving Novo Nordisk and GSK and a loss for Open AI were also among the top talking points
Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Gift this article