InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

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a defendant in preliminary Dutch IP enforcement cases can also obtain a cost order against the claimant if the case is withdrawn by the claimant before the oral hearing, for example after a defendant's written rebuttal.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 In that case, the writ was issued on October 23, and the case was withdrawn on November 10.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

Abe_Takanori
Peter de Lange

V.O.
Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJ
The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 416 67 11
Fax: +31 70 416 67 99


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

Rich pickings: how Hollywood rivals will profit from Weinstein's downfall https://t.co/3v4ZamycWP Analysis of Weinstein Co IP via @guardian

Oct 20 2017 03:32 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @BakerMcK_LonIP: Read @BakerIPnewsDACH and @BakerMcK_LonIP summary in @ManagingIP on the BGH's #3D chocolate packaging decision 🍫🇩🇪🇬🇧htt…

Oct 20 2017 02:28 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Bea Swedlow takes over from Randi Karpinia as @WomenInIP Committee chair at #aiplaAM17 - "Randi keeps me in check + I keep her out of check!

Oct 20 2017 11:57 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

October 2017

Courts grapple with scope of patent protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly introduced a doctrine of equivalents and arguably also established a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in the UK. We look at the law across Europe, and the impact the decision might have. Kingsley Egbuonu, Michael Loney and James Nurton set the scene



Most read articles

Supplements