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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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a defendant in preliminary Dutch IP enforcement cases can also obtain a cost order against the claimant if the case is withdrawn by the claimant before the oral hearing, for example after a defendant's written rebuttal.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 In that case, the writ was issued on October 23, and the case was withdrawn on November 10.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

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
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article