The Netherlands: Court rules on remedies for contributory infringement in Europe

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

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Developments included an update in the VAR dispute between Ballinno and UEFA, the latest CMS updates, and a swathe of market moves
The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
Gift this article