Greece: Infringement by equivalence affirmed

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

Cookies Settings

Greece: Infringement by equivalence affirmed

While the doctrine of equivalents exists in theory in most Greek legal textbooks, judgments applying this theory in practice are scarce in Greece. A recently issued judgment by the Athens Court of First Instance in preliminary injunction proceedings is an important addition to this rather small number of judgments.

The dispute at issue arose when a foreign pharmaceutical company filed a preliminary injunction application against a Greek pharmaceutical company, which manufactured a pharmaceutical solution for export abroad, claiming infringement of its patented manufacturing process.

The defendant argued that its manufacturing process was different highlighting, inter alia, a difference in the order of the steps performed for the preparation of its pharmaceutical solution compared to the patented process.

The Court was not convinced by the defendant's line of defence. After providing an analysis of the doctrine of equivalents theory, the judgment found that both processes employ the same material and that the steps performed are the same. The judge added that the main features of the invention were present in both processes and that the change in the order of the process steps by the defendant had no significance for the final result.

A preliminary injunction was thus granted ordering the defendant to cease any productive activity infringing the patent, to recall the manufactured products and to provide the claimant with all information necessary to identify any parties involved in the distribution and marketing of the infringing products abroad. Furthermore the Court ordered the provisional seizure of any infringing products found in the possession of the defendant or any other party deriving rights therefrom.

A further interesting aspect of this judgment is that the products were not manufactured to be sold in Greece but were only intended to be exported for sale in foreign markets. The grant of a preliminary injunction against the manufacturer may therefore constitute an effective strategy in preventing those sales in a larger number of countries.

kilimiris.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


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

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article