The Netherlands: Court rules on remedies for contributory infringement in Europe
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Four sources reveal which tools they have been using – or building – to help them with a range of tasks from invention generation to claim sufficiency
Managing IP reveals Wednesday's highlights, including a discussion on how AI is helping lawyers improve their "gut instinct" trademark decisions
Managing IP reveals Tuesday’s highlights, including an illuminating discussion celebrating women in the workplace and the challenges that remain
Dana Northcott, INTA’s 2024 president and associate general counsel for Amazon's IP team, talks about her work for the association
Managing IP reveals highlights from the INTA Annual Meeting, including law firms’ diversity and ESG concerns and a new beginning for a Chinese firm
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for trademark work today, including which firms are on the up
Highlights from Sunday included judicial insight from across the globe and a keynote address from Martin Luther King Jr’s daughter
Managing IP’s senior reporter Rani Mehta interviewed attendees at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta about how they made the most out of their first day
A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
Gift this article