When are IP holders liable for enforcing a later invalidated IP right?
On behalf of our entire IP team, we first and foremost would like to wish you the very best for the New Year, and invite you to our first IP Update of 2023.
At this IP Update, our IP specialists, Christophe Ronse and Kirian Claeyé, will discuss under what circumstances IP holders may be held liable for enforcing a later invalidated IP right.
As many of you will know, this is a ‘hot’ topic. In 2019, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Bayer v Gedeon Richter (C-688/17), which addressed this question regarding the loss suffered from a provisional injunction based on a subsequently invalidated patent. On 11 October 2022, the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Mylan v Novartis applying the CJEU’s principles to a case where the patentee had enforced a provisional injunction based on the Belgian tier of a subsequently invalidated European patent. The day before, on 10 October 2022, the Finnish Markinnaoikeus had referred another question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU relating to a subsequently invalidated SPC (C-473/22).
Christophe and Kirian will focus on these two judgments and the pending referral in the broader context of earlier case law and explain what their outcomes could mean for your business. They will answer questions that include:
- Is an IP holder automatically liable for enforcing a provisional injunction based on a later invalidated IP right?
- Is the answer different if it concerns a first instance provisional injunction that is later overturned on appeal?
- Under what circumstances would an IP holder be considered to have ‘abused’ its right to enforce the later invalidated right?
This webinar will be in English and has been accredited with 1 point by the IBJ/IJE.
We look forward to virtually meeting you soon!
Your hosts
Recommended articles
Belgian Constitutional Court strikes down pharma industry ‘unavailability contribution’
The Belgian Constitutional Court (“CC”), on 6 November 2025, annulled some provisions of the Law of 18 May 2024 containing various provisions on health and finance, striking down the pharma industry ‘unavailability contribution’. Background Parts of the above Law sought to protect patients from bearing additional costs when reimbursable medicines become unavailable and must be […]
Read on
Food Hygiene for Fish: EU General Court Requires Scientific Basis to “Clarify” the Law
Food company Mowi Poland successfully challenged the European Commission’s new hygiene rules governing ‘stiffening’—a specialised fish processing technique—on the grounds that the Commission failed to obtain mandatory scientific consultation. While the Commission defended its approach by characterising the measures as mere “clarification” of existing law and citing industry guidelines as support, the EU General Court […]
Read on
Combination therapies in Belgium: how to collaborate without breaching competition law
As the landscape of modern medicine evolves, combination therapies—those that use two or more distinct medicines, often from different companies—are becoming increasingly vital, especially in treating complex diseases like cancer. These therapies promise improved clinical outcomes through synergistic mechanisms of action. However, the reimbursement process for such therapies presents significant regulatory and legal challenges, particularly […]
Read on