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 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

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

Patent and trademark practitioners say arrival of barrister will help maintain the UK's reputation as a leading forum for complex IP disputes
Qantm CEO speaks to Managing IP about the business's first deal since it was acquired by a private equity firm and explains why top-tier Malaysian firm Henry Goh & Co was the group's ‘plan A, B and C’
György Pintz, founder of Pintz & Partners, talks through the challenges of founding a firm and explains why lawyers and table tennis players have more in common than you might expect
Kate Nuehring Su, partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, explores a successful PTAB appeal and why the Federal Circuit reached an opposite outcome on the same doctrine
From BTS to Squid Game and kimchi to memory chips, the Korean wave is reverberating around the world and IP work is also seeing a boom, say two Yoon & Yang partners
Managing IP will host a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on November 5 to reveal the winners
Recent lateral moves raise a bigger question for full-service firms – can patent litigation remain a strategic priority when competing practices generate larger profits?
As counterfeiters grow increasingly sophisticated, Gibson Dunn is differentiating its trademark practice through a focus on payment tracing, judgment enforcement and asset recovery
Anita Polott, who is celebrating three decades at Morgan Lewis this year, reflects on career progression, stepping into unfamiliar territory, and leadership frameworks
Technical excellence remains essential, but many firms are discovering that packaging IP with complementary practice areas can unlock new clients and a stronger competitive position
Gift this article