The Netherlands: Cost awards in Dutch enforcement cases

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: Cost awards in Dutch enforcement cases

From now on, a defendant in preliminary Dutch IP enforcement cases can also obtain a cost order against the claimant if the case is withdrawn by the claimant before the oral hearing, for example after a defendant's written rebuttal. For (full) proceedings on the merits, this has always been clearly the case, but the procedural framework is not exactly the same for the famously quick preliminary proceedings (kort geding).

Such kort geding proceedings are a very attractive procedure for conducting IP infringement cases quickly and before a single judge. For example, the Dutch pemetrexed case – about a blockbuster medicine – recently went from writ to full written decision within one month and two days (Eli Lilly v Sandoz, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1907) and the stipulated costs were €50,000, to be awarded to the winning party. The issue of cost awards is pressing, even in the event of a relatively fast withdrawal, because preparing a defence quickly is critical in these kort geding infringement procedures.

The Supreme Court has decided that the defendant can reopen the proceedings by requesting a cost award (Wieland v GIA Systems, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1087). The decision of the Supreme Court was given in a trade mark case. The District Court of The Hague has now applied the new rules to a patents case as well, in its decision of of March 9 2017 (Putkast v CBM, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:22850). In that case, the writ was issued on October 23, and the case was withdrawn on November 10. Nevertheless, costs were awarded to the amount of about €11,000.

Peter de Lange


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe 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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article