Greek preliminary injunction delays do not amount to lack of urgency

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

Greek preliminary injunction delays do not amount to lack of urgency

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
Injunction. Document with label. Desk with books and judges gavel in a lawyer's office.

Constantinos Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris draws on recent case law in noting that an applicant’s timely action fulfils the urgency requirement for the granting of a preliminary injunction

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, preliminary injunctions are available if the applicant proves that its rights are prima facie infringed or that there is an imminent threat of infringement and that there is an urgent need to protect its right from such infringement.

Urgency is therefore one of the requirements for the grant of a preliminary injunction. While there is no deadline set in the law for filing a preliminary injunction application, the court will always examine whether:

  • The need to provisionally protect a right is truly urgent, in the sense that without such protection, the applicant may suffer irreparable, or difficult-to-reverse, harm; and

  • The applicant has acted without delay from the moment it became aware of an infringement or a threat thereof.

In patent litigation relating to pharmaceutical products, there is settled case law according to which the threat of the launch of an infringing product in the market, while patent protection is still available, will satisfy the urgency requirement for the patent holder, as this would be considered as an objective indication of irreparable or difficult-to-reverse harm.

The balance of convenience is also a factor considered by the court and it is advisable that a patent holder should preferably act before an infringing product be placed in the market.

An example from Greek judicial practice

In the above context, the Athens First Instance Single Member Court was recently called to hear a preliminary injunction application of an originator company acting against a company intending to launch a generic product in the Greek market.

The preliminary injunction application was filed before the launch of the generic product, but the hearing of the case was postponed for over a year, due to reasons not attributable to the applicant, and thus took place well after such launch.

At the hearing, the generic company raised an objection alleging lack of urgency based on the fact that a long time had passed since the filing of the preliminary injunction application and its product was already in the market, adding that if a preliminary injunction was granted, it would be the party to suffer irreparable harm.

The objection was rejected by the court, which focused on whether the applicant had acted in a timely manner. In this respect, the court found that the applicant had acted without delay, having requested protection as soon as it became aware of imminent infringement and, in any case, before the launch of the generic product, and that the fact that a long time had passed since the filing of the application, during which the generic product was launched, could not be to the detriment of the applicant, which acted diligently.

Comment on the court’s methodology

While the circumstances of this case are exceptional, as such long delays are not common in preliminary injunction proceedings, it is certainly reassuring that the court applied the correct test and acknowledged that what is important is whether the applicant had acted in a timely manner rather than the situation created due to the delay in hearing the case.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Microsoft allegedly uses the HEVC technology in a range of products and offers an extension as an add-on
A group of five lawyers who joined Cleary Gottlieb say they want to help expand the firm’s IP litigation practice
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and our Managing IP Awards, we assess some of the major IP firms and trends in Germany
Florina Firaru discusses making new connections, the art of flower arranging, and the biggest misconception about IP
The firm, which appointed three IP partners from A&O Shearman, wants to develop a tier one practice in Europe
The England and Wales appeals court handed down its judgment just seven working days after hearing the trademark dispute involving pharma company Merck
A host of law firms from across Europe and beyond helped bring the streaming technology dispute to a close
Hugues Derème, director general of the Benelux IP Office, unveils his vision for the region, how to improve IP awareness, and use of AI
A copyright win for AI firm Anthropic and a new executive order against law firm Jenner & Block were also among the top talking points this week
A principal at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner explains how AI tools, including DeepIP, can position the firm to help clients
Gift this article