Austria: Enforcement of recall claims in provisional proceedings
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

Austria: Enforcement of recall claims in provisional proceedings

In a recent decision, the Austrian Supreme Court had to answer the question whether a defendant can be forced to recall goods from the channels of commerce by means of a preliminary order.

In this dispute, the Appeal Court found that a specific catheter having protective means for a needle infringed a European patent. The defendant argued non-infringement as well as nullity of the patent in suit. However, during the appeal proceedings as in the provisional proceedings in Austria, the Board of Appeals of the EPO found the patent in suit to be valid, the Vienna Appeal Court followed these findings on the validity of the patent in dispute. Accordingly, the Appeal Court granted a preliminary injunction and the defendant was also ordered to recall the infringing catheters from the channels of commerce. Thus, the Vienna Appeal Court found that the defendant who has no power of disposition of the infringing goods anymore cannot remove the infringing goods from the channels of commerce, but he must make a serious endeavour to recall these goods even before a decision on the merits is handed down.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Austria. The Austrian Supreme Court agreed with the Vienna Appeal Court that the patent is valid and infringed. However, the Supreme Court reversed the findings regarding the recall from the channels of commerce in provisional proceedings. The Supreme Court reasoned its decision that generally by a provisional measure it is not allowed to create a situation that cannot be undone after the end of the provisional proceedings. However, if a recall is finalised, this would create a situation which cannot be undone anymore as the defendant has no right that the former customer will agree to a new contract after the provisional injunction was eventually lifted. Additionally, in its reasoning the Supreme Court referred to the Enforcement Directive where the recall of goods is only referred as a corrective measure in a decision on the merits. However, a recall of goods is not mentioned in Article 9 referring to provisional and precautionary measures.

Thus, the Supreme Court (correctly) concluded that a recall of infringing goods is generally not available in provisional proceedings. These findings are not restricted to patents, but apply to all IP rights.

Rainer Beetz


SONN & PARTNER Patentanwälte

Riemergasse 14

A-1010 Vienna

Austria

Tel: +43 1 512 84 05

Fax: +43 1 512 98 05

office@sonn.at

www.sonn.at

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Sources at five firms provide updates on how they're approaching remote working and what their policies have meant for recruitment
Three lawyers who joined Boies Schiller Flexner in May say they've enjoyed working on litigation that includes non-IP aspects
McKool Smith principal Steve Pollinger explains how a simple internet search by a prospective client led to a $192 million patent win against Samsung
CJEU Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has proposed a compromise in his second opinion in the BSH v Electrolux case
Benjamin Sodey, a former in-house lawyer at life sciences business MilliporeSigma, says he's looking forward to expanding his practice at Polsinelli
Loeb & Loeb has taken on the IP, corporate and compliance teams from Perkins Coie’s soon-to-be closed Beijing office
In the latest episode, we discuss our latest list of in-house rising stars and analyse developments from AI work for law firms to legal market news in Canada
More than half of the peer-nominated stars listed in this year’s ‘Ones to Watch’ list are women – let’s hope that recognition continues
Tamir Packin, partner at Desmarais, explains how the team navigated complex discovery issues to secure a patent win for IBM
Gift this article