Court rules on burden of proof in patented process case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Court rules on burden of proof in patented process case

burden-min-final.jpg

The reversal of burden of proof in civil proceedings concerning the enforcement of rights for patents for processes is a provision that exists in the laws of many countries, including Greece.

The same provision is included in Article 34 of TRIPS. This gives judicial authorities the power to order the defendants to prove that their process is not infringing.

The defendant's burden of proof is laid down in Article 17 Paragraph 6 of Law 1733/87, which provides that "if the invention relates to a process for the manufacture of a product, each product of the same nature is presumed to have been manufactured according to the protected process."

Article 34 of TRIPS imposes an additional condition for the infringement presumption to apply. In order for this to apply, the product obtained by the patented process must be new.

The issue of which conditions should apply for the reversal of burden of proof to be ordered was examined in a recent judgment from the Athens Single Member Court of First Instance hearing a preliminary injunction application based on a patent with process claims. In these proceedings, the patentee was relying on the reversal of burden of proof as regards infringement of the patented process. The defendant objected, arguing that the reversal of burden of proof cannot apply under the circumstances, since the product obtained under the process was not new. The objection was based on Article 34.1a of TRIPS and the defendant argued that these provisions of TRIPS overrule the broader provisions of national law.

The court rejected the objection and found the national law provisions applicable. In its judgment it referred to CJEU judgment C-414/11 and ruled that, in view of this judgment, TRIPS does not have a direct effect on the member states, given that the rules of the TRIPS Agreement fall within the meaning of "commercial aspects of intellectual property" and by extension, the "common commercial policy" and fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, based on the provisions of TFEU Articles 3.1(e) and 207.1.

kilimiris-constantinos.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


Patrinos & Kilimiris

7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.

GR-11528 Athens

Greece

Tel: +30210 7222906, 7222050

Fax: +30210 7222889

info@patrinoskilimiris.com

www.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms that advise generics businesses reflect on whether they’re seeing more aggressive tactics from innovators and how they’re managing their practices
Suspicions concerning AI in the legal space, and another copyright win for Ed Sheeran were among the biggest IP developments this week
Michael Sitzman, a life sciences litigator, explains how McDermott’s busy schedule at the UPC convinced him to join
The UK’s top court will hand down the decision next week, 17 months after hearing arguments in the crucial trademark dispute
Ceyda Maisami explains why HP is becoming more vocal in its SEP arguments and reveals why the company has transformed the way it engages with outside counsel
In the latest UPC update, we examine a ruling on director liability, another on the Gillette defence, and look ahead to cases concerning medical devices
Burak Yüceel outlines six characteristics that make a successful IP practitioner and explains why Alan Turing is an inspiration
Lawyers at Dentons unpick the findings of a survey that revealed that businesses tend to focus on reactive rather than proactive use of AI when performing IP evaluations
Peng Lei and David Webb of Herbert Smith Freehills assess what battery innovators need to know to protect their investments
Little to no policies from either candidate suggest we may be waiting a while before we see major changes to the US’s IP framework
Gift this article