Greek preliminary injunction delays do not amount to lack of urgency

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Greek preliminary injunction delays do not amount to lack of urgency

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Injunction. Document with label. Desk with books and judges gavel in a lawyer's office.

Constantinos Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris draws on recent case law in noting that an applicant’s timely action fulfils the urgency requirement for the granting of a preliminary injunction

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, preliminary injunctions are available if the applicant proves that its rights are prima facie infringed or that there is an imminent threat of infringement and that there is an urgent need to protect its right from such infringement.

Urgency is therefore one of the requirements for the grant of a preliminary injunction. While there is no deadline set in the law for filing a preliminary injunction application, the court will always examine whether:

  • The need to provisionally protect a right is truly urgent, in the sense that without such protection, the applicant may suffer irreparable, or difficult-to-reverse, harm; and

  • The applicant has acted without delay from the moment it became aware of an infringement or a threat thereof.

In patent litigation relating to pharmaceutical products, there is settled case law according to which the threat of the launch of an infringing product in the market, while patent protection is still available, will satisfy the urgency requirement for the patent holder, as this would be considered as an objective indication of irreparable or difficult-to-reverse harm.

The balance of convenience is also a factor considered by the court and it is advisable that a patent holder should preferably act before an infringing product be placed in the market.

An example from Greek judicial practice

In the above context, the Athens First Instance Single Member Court was recently called to hear a preliminary injunction application of an originator company acting against a company intending to launch a generic product in the Greek market.

The preliminary injunction application was filed before the launch of the generic product, but the hearing of the case was postponed for over a year, due to reasons not attributable to the applicant, and thus took place well after such launch.

At the hearing, the generic company raised an objection alleging lack of urgency based on the fact that a long time had passed since the filing of the preliminary injunction application and its product was already in the market, adding that if a preliminary injunction was granted, it would be the party to suffer irreparable harm.

The objection was rejected by the court, which focused on whether the applicant had acted in a timely manner. In this respect, the court found that the applicant had acted without delay, having requested protection as soon as it became aware of imminent infringement and, in any case, before the launch of the generic product, and that the fact that a long time had passed since the filing of the application, during which the generic product was launched, could not be to the detriment of the applicant, which acted diligently.

Comment on the court’s methodology

While the circumstances of this case are exceptional, as such long delays are not common in preliminary injunction proceedings, it is certainly reassuring that the court applied the correct test and acknowledged that what is important is whether the applicant had acted in a timely manner rather than the situation created due to the delay in hearing the case.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Morgan Lewis adds three partners with technical depth, reinforcing the firm’s strategy to bridge legal and tech expertise in patent litigation
The firm posted a 13% increase in profit as well as a rise in overall revenue
Catherine Lee, one of Managing IP’s Top 250 Women in IP 2025, discusses her ‘soft’ approach to leadership and why building a community at work is important
Transactions specialists at Paul Weiss are advising on the high-profile split of Kraft Heinz into two companies, while Skadden is also involved in the deal
Youngmin Park joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss learning languages, moonlighting as a drummer, and why late is better than never
The record-breaking $1.5 billion settlement between the AI company and book authors may not lead to rapid resolution of other cases, say copyright lawyers
Leaders at two Brazilian law firms outline strategies to adjust to trademark fee changes at Brazil's IP office while urging clients to apply before September 20
Former in-house counsel Andriana Shultz Daly has returned to the firm with client-side insight and courtroom skills to build the firm’s life sciences practice
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the 2025 winners for the 13th annual awards!
News of AI company Cerence accusing Apple of patent infringement and a hiring update from Lewis Silkin were also among the top talking points
Gift this article