Greece: Infringement by equivalence affirmed

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

Greece: Infringement by equivalence affirmed

While the doctrine of equivalents exists in theory in most Greek legal textbooks, judgments applying this theory in practice are scarce in Greece. A recently issued judgment by the Athens Court of First Instance in preliminary injunction proceedings is an important addition to this rather small number of judgments.

The dispute at issue arose when a foreign pharmaceutical company filed a preliminary injunction application against a Greek pharmaceutical company, which manufactured a pharmaceutical solution for export abroad, claiming infringement of its patented manufacturing process.

The defendant argued that its manufacturing process was different highlighting, inter alia, a difference in the order of the steps performed for the preparation of its pharmaceutical solution compared to the patented process.

The Court was not convinced by the defendant's line of defence. After providing an analysis of the doctrine of equivalents theory, the judgment found that both processes employ the same material and that the steps performed are the same. The judge added that the main features of the invention were present in both processes and that the change in the order of the process steps by the defendant had no significance for the final result.

A preliminary injunction was thus granted ordering the defendant to cease any productive activity infringing the patent, to recall the manufactured products and to provide the claimant with all information necessary to identify any parties involved in the distribution and marketing of the infringing products abroad. Furthermore the Court ordered the provisional seizure of any infringing products found in the possession of the defendant or any other party deriving rights therefrom.

A further interesting aspect of this judgment is that the products were not manufactured to be sold in Greece but were only intended to be exported for sale in foreign markets. The grant of a preliminary injunction against the manufacturer may therefore constitute an effective strategy in preventing those sales in a larger number of countries.

kilimiris.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210 7222889info@patrinoskilimiris.comwww.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article