The Netherlands: Cost awards in Dutch enforcement cases

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: Cost awards in Dutch enforcement cases

From now on, a defendant in preliminary Dutch IP enforcement cases can also obtain a cost order against the claimant if the case is withdrawn by the claimant before the oral hearing, for example after a defendant's written rebuttal. For (full) proceedings on the merits, this has always been clearly the case, but the procedural framework is not exactly the same for the famously quick preliminary proceedings (kort geding).

Such kort geding proceedings are a very attractive procedure for conducting IP infringement cases quickly and before a single judge. For example, the Dutch pemetrexed case – about a blockbuster medicine – recently went from writ to full written decision within one month and two days (Eli Lilly v Sandoz, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1907) and the stipulated costs were €50,000, to be awarded to the winning party. The issue of cost awards is pressing, even in the event of a relatively fast withdrawal, because preparing a defence quickly is critical in these kort geding infringement procedures.

The Supreme Court has decided that the defendant can reopen the proceedings by requesting a cost award (Wieland v GIA Systems, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1087). The decision of the Supreme Court was given in a trade mark case. The District Court of The Hague has now applied the new rules to a patents case as well, in its decision of of March 9 2017 (Putkast v CBM, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:22850). In that case, the writ was issued on October 23, and the case was withdrawn on November 10. Nevertheless, costs were awarded to the amount of about €11,000.

Peter de Lange


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe 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

Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
A cross-practice team from Mayer Brown, which included members of the firm’s IP practice, advised on the deal
María Cecilia Romoleroux discusses the challenges she has faced in her career in IP and how she hopes to improve things for the next generation of women
Value-added services give in-house counsel the satisfaction that they are getting more value for money, while law firms get the opportunity to win more work
A team at Boies Schiller Flexner is advising shoe company Kizik and parent company HandsFree Labs in the dispute
Nokia’s latest enforcement actions against Geely and Transsion joining Via LA’s AAC pool were also among the top talking points
Benjamin Kelly, the firm’s fifth IP partner hire in a little over one year, has experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving complex technologies
Gift this article