Quantification of damages not an admissibility requirement for a preliminary injunction in Greece
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

Quantification of damages not an admissibility requirement for a preliminary injunction in Greece

Sponsored by


Constantinos Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris reports on a case that brings renewed clarity to the issue of whether an estimate of damages must be provided by a patent holder applying for a preliminary injunction

The Athens First Instance Single Member Court was recently called to examine the issue of whether quantification of damages is a prerequisite in order to uphold urgency for the grant of a preliminary injunction in the context of a pharmaceutical patent’s infringement.

Background to the case

The case involved a preliminary injunction application in the name of an originator pharmaceutical company against a company attempting to market at-risk generic products falling within the scope of a pharmaceutical patent. The generic company, inter alia, objected to the preliminary injunction sought, arguing that the claimant had failed to provide an estimate of the damages to be suffered in the event of actual launch of the generic products at issue on to the market.

Such an objection was based on a couple of judgments of the same court, according to which the quantification of damages was compulsory in order for the court to assess whether the harm to be suffered would justify the grant of a preliminary injunction.

The court’s ruling

The court rejected the objection, ruling that the claimant does not have the burden to specifically quantify damages in order to satisfy the condition of urgency, provided that there are other circumstances showing urgency in the case under consideration.

This judgment is in line with a well-established case law and practice of the Greek courts, which have routinely granted preliminary injunctions under similar circumstances, as well as with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, under which a launch at risk under similar circumstances may constitute an objective indication of irreparable harm for the patent holder.

The court accepted this line of reasoning, ruling that the marketing of a generic product that is covered by a patent in force involves the risk of an important monetary damage for the patent holder but also of damage to the reputation of the patent holder and the pharmaceutical product at issue.

The fact that the generic company had already launched the product in suit before the grant of a temporary restraining order did not change the finding of the court in relation to urgency, since it was ruled that any such sales have taken place without a legal right.

Impact of the decision

This judgment seems to put things back on track, if they had ever gone astray, and lift any doubt that might have been raised by a couple of judgments to the contrary, and definitely contributes to the effective judicial protection of patent rights.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

View the Social Impact EMEA Awards 2024 shortlist and join us on September 12 at The Waldorf Hotel in London
James Tumbridge talks about advising the government on AI and why his day could start with the police and end with legal networking
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows that the IP ambitions of Asian full-service firms and a life sciences focus in the US have prompted lateral moves
Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
Gift this article