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

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

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

Leaders at Malaysian law firm Skrine explain why cost remains a major pain point for Malaysian businesses and how client service can help a firm stand out
Wendy Heilbut of Heilbut LLP explains some of the hidden risks of using AI to help create a new brand
The law firms that signed an amicus brief in support of others under attack must be lauded, but more large firms should join them
Lisa Kobialka, partner at Kramer Levin, believes the combination will better position the group to work on multi-jurisdictional disputes
Senior members of Dentons Link Legal discuss how the firm’s integration with IP boutique Aumirah, and being part of the wider Dentons group, will help scale the firm’s IP practice
The court announcing it will follow the EPO on inventive step, a case with a Chinese element, and three big settlements were among the top talking points this fortnight
US firms have been on top of the lateral hiring market and performed strongly in Managing IP's Americas Awards and the IP STARS rankings, a trend that could continue this year
Amicus brief signed by various firms said Donald Trump’s executive orders have sought to ‘cow every other firm, large and small, into submission’
Börge Seeger reveals the similarities between IP strategy and F1, and opines on bookshops, espresso machines, and late-night emails
The tie-up will add around 10 US-based partners to Herbert Smith Freehills’ IP offering
Gift this article