Greece: PI maintained despite non­final ruling on infringement
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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.


Manolis Metaxakis

Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal of Anand & Anand explain how they helped Swiss pharma company Vifor secure a landmark win against generic companies in India
Malisheia Douglas, who spent six years at Eaton Corporation, said she was attracted by the firm's global footprint
The European Parliament has voted in favour of overhauling the SEP framework, a proposal that has sparked deep division among patent owners and implementers
Daniel Poh talks about his journey to becoming managing partner and how firms can win new business from Chinese companies
Missing a deadline can have serious consequences but law firms should consider being lenient to those responsible
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
Gift this article