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

Counsel at five US firms explain how they get less experienced attorneys ready for conducting oral arguments
Tesla and Avanci’s FRAND battle, a boost for UK artists concerning royalty payments and lawyer moves involving White & Case and Fieldfisher were among the top talking points
Finnegan partners outline how the firm determines whether AI tools are safe to use and if they are a worthwhile investment
Bill Braunlin was drawn to the firm because of its work with start-ups and universities, as well as its employees’ industry experience
Melissa Anyetei discusses how she’s building her practice and reveals the challenges of working at a larger firm
Lawyers at Aksoy IP discuss why a delay in implementing a new procedure for cancelling trademarks in Türkiye is causing a headache for practitioners
Private equity firms explain how external funding and expertise can help IP firms and reveal what they look for before investing
Our latest UPC update covers first-instance decisions, upcoming hearings, and other significant developments
Managing IP goes behind the scenes to uncover what happens when setting up an SEP licensing programme for electric vehicle chargers, and discovers why law firms play a crucial role
Exclusive data and in-house analysis show that law firms are able to respond quickly when engaging with in-house clients but struggle to make the grade when it comes to the quality of their answers
Gift this article