1.1 What are the principal sources of law and regulation relating to patents and patent litigation? (Briefly describe the role of international, federal or state laws and relevance of court decisions, list and briefly describe relevant statutes and international treaties)
Patent litigation has during the past few years increased in Finland, in particular in the field of pharmaceuticals. There are now about 20 new patent cases each year.
Patent legislation is governed by the Finnish Patents Act (the ‘Patents Act’) (550/67) of 15 December 1967 as amended and the Finnish Act on Employee Inventions (656/67) of 29 December 1967 as amended. The Finnish Patent Act was prepared as a Nordic cooperation project. Consequently, the patent legislation of Denmark, Norway and Sweden resembles each other. Finland is a member of the European Union and a member of the Paris Union and has ratified and implemented several international conventions, including the European Patent Convention, the TRIPS agreement, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
1.2 What is the order of priority of the relevant sources, ie which take precedence in the event of a conflict?
Statute law constitutes the primary source of law. The courts interpret statute law using guidance from case law, preparatory works of the relevant laws and legal doctrine. Preliminary rulings of the European Court of Justice are followed by Finnish courts.
2.1 In which courts are patents enforced? Are they specialised patent courts? If not, what level of expertise can a patent holder expect from the courts?
Finland has centralised its patent litigation in the District Court of Helsinki. The District Court of Helsinki shall be competent to hear proceedings in respect of:
In addition, the District Court of Helsinki shall also be competent in matters concerning the right to an invention for which a European patent under the European Patent Convention has been sought. A prerequisite for hearing such case in the District Court of Helsinki is that the defendant is domiciled in Finland or that the plaintiff is domiciled in Finland and the defendant is not domiciled in a country which is party to the European Patent Convention. The District Court of Helsinki shall also hear the case if the parties to the dispute have agreed that the District Court of Helsinki shall be competent in the case. Such a dispute may not be heard by the District Court of Helsinki if the same dispute between the same parties is pending before the court of another country that is party to the European Patent Convention. If the competence of such foreign court has been contested, the District Court of Helsinki shall postpone the hearing of the case until the question of competence has been finally decided upon by the foreign court.
A final decision taken by a court of a contracting state of the European Patent Convention in a dispute referred to above is enforceable in Finland. A court decision passed on the applicant for a European patent, is not, however, enforceable in Finland, if the writ of summons has not been duly served on him or if he has not been afforded a sufficient time to prepare himself for the court proceedings.
2.2 To what extent are courts willing to consider, or are bound by, the opinions of other national or foreign courts that have handed down decision in similar cases?
Finnish courts are not formally bound by decisions in similar cases by foreign courts nor by similar decisions by national courts. Nevertheless, foreign case law is frequently used by parties in patent litigation and may affect the rulings. As patent cases are handled by the same courts in Finland it is obvious that national case law in practice has an effect on the rulings. Also case law from the European Patent Office is observed by Finnish courts in their application of the law.
2.3 Do the courts deal with infringement and invalidity simultaneously? Or must invalidity actions be brought in separate proceedings? If so, before which court or government agency (eg the Patent Office)?
Validity is frequently challenged as a defence in patent infringement proceedings. Article 61 of the Patents Act stipulates that where the defendant in infringement proceedings claims that the patent is invalid, the court may, at the defendant’s request, postpone the infringement proceedings until validity has been determined. In practice, the court, as a rule, postpones the handling of the infringement if the defendant has so requested, and considers first the invalidation claim. This considerably prolongs the infringement proceedings. The invalidity action is filed before the same court as the infringement proceedings and is handled by the same judge or judges.
In invalidation proceedings the court always requests an opinion on validity from the Patent Office. The opinion on validity is requested prior to the main hearing and is thus based upon the written documentation presented by the parties.
2.4 Who can represent parties before the courts handling patent litigation and/or the government agency dealing with patent validity issues?
There are no formal requirements to be fulfilled for a person to represent a party in litigation or administrative proceedings in Finnish courts. Usually a party in patent litigation is represented by an attorney at law who is assisted by a patent agent. In validity proceedings pending with the Patent Office of National Board of Patents and Registration the parties are generally represented by patent agents.
2.5 What is the language of the proceedings? Is there a choice of language?
Proceedings are held in the Finnish language. In addition, a Finnish individual with Swedish as their main language may have proceedings held in Swedish. If a party or witness does not speak Finnish, an interpreter is usually engaged.
2.6 To what extent are courts willing to grant cross-border or extra territorial injunctions?
There is no court practice that would clarify whether Finnish courts are willing to grant cross-border injunctions.
2.7 To what extent do courts recognise the blocking effect of ‘torpedo’ actions abroad?
There exists no court precedents on the blocking effects of ‘torpedo’ actions abroad.
3.1 How is patent infringement assessed? To what extent does the doctrine of equivalents apply in an infringement action?
Anyone who has made an invention which is capable of industrial application, shall be entitled to the exclusive right to exploit the invention commercially. Patents may only be granted for inventions which are new in relation to what was known before the filing date of the patent application and which also differ essentially from them. Finnish courts are not bound by the European Patent Office Guidelines or decisions of its Board of Appeals, but generally take these sources into account when rendering decisions on novelty and inventive step.
The scope of protection conferred by a patent shall, according to the Patents Act, be determined by the patent claims. The description may serve as guidance when interpreting the claims. There have been discussions in Finnish legal literature on whether the interpretation should be based on Art 69 EPC and the Protocol on the interpretation of Art 69 EPC. The case law has not given a clear answer in this respect.
In infringement proceedings a Finnish court uses the patent as granted as a starting point. If and when the patent claims need interpretation, the court looks at the description and drawings for further reference.
When considering the scope of protection, it should be observed that the judge or judges in the infringement proceedings are assisted by two court-appointed technical experts. The technical experts render their opinion on the scope of protection as a basis for the court ruling.
It is also possible for the court to request the opinion of the Patent Office in infringement proceedings if, for example, questions concerning prior art and prosecution issues arise.
The doctrine of equivalence has been discussed in Finnish legal literature. The courts have been reluctant to apply the doctrine. In a recent proposal for the amendment of the Patents Act, it was stated that the scope of protection also includes infringement by equivalent means. It will remain for the courts to determine whether the doctrine of equivalence will be introduced in a more distinct fashion after this recognition in the preparatory works.
The exclusive right conferred by a patent shall imply, with the exceptions, that no one may exploit an invention, without the proprietor’s consent, by:
A patent shall also confer on its proprietor the exclusive right to prevent any person not having his consent from supplying or offering to supply any person not entitled to exploit the invention with the means of working the invention in this country in relation to an essential element of the invention where such other person knows, or where it is evident from the circumstances that the means are suitable and intended for working the invention (indirect infringement). This provision shall not apply where the means are staple commercial products, except where such other person attempts to induce the receiver to commit any of the acts referred to above.
The exclusive right does not apply to:
The Finnish Parliament on 7 March 2006 passed an Act amending the Finnish Patent Act to implement the so-called ‘Bolar’ exemption set out in the Medicines Directive (2001/83/EC) and the Veterinary Medicines Directive (2001/82/EC). Under the amended s 3 of the Patent Act the patent holder’s exclusive rights are expressly limited to allow studies and trials related to a medicinal patent when such measures are necessary for a marketing authorisation application of a medicinal product based on the patent in question. The aim of the reform is to speed up the entry of generic products on the market after the expiry of the relevant patent. The scope of the new exemption is not limited only to marketing authorisations for generic products, and thus extends beyond the minimum scope provided for in the Directives. The amendment has entered into force from 1 May 2006.
The basic principle for exhaustion of patent rights is set out in Art 3 of the Patents Act. Finland applies the principle that if a product protected by a patent has been put on the market in Finland or in another EU or EEA country by the patentee or with his or her consent, the patentee may no longer rely upon his or her exclusive patent rights for such a product.
The offering of a product protected by the patent or the possession of a product for such purposes (in Finland) is regarded as direct patent infringement. The provisions on indirect infringement have rarely been subject to litigation and thus the scope of indirect infringement is in Finland still to be developed through court precedent.
In addition to contesting the infringement, claiming invalidity is the most common defence of the alleged infringer. Other available defences are, for example, compulsory licences etc dealt with in question 3.7 below.
3.3 To what extent can enforcement of a patent expose the patent holder to liability for an antitrust violation?
The enforcement of patent rights has not in Finnish case law been considered as an antitrust violation. Finnish legal practice is, however, expected to follow the developments in the European Union. Enforcement of intellectual property rights has in a recent Supreme Court ruling been ruled to be abusive and contrary to fair business practices under the Act on Unfair Competition.
A patent may be invalidated if:
3.5 Can a court only partially invalidate a patent? Can it transform the patent into a utility model?
The Supreme Court has in one case decided that partial invalidity of a patent can be granted in invalidity proceedings. Partial invalidity is however exceptional as there is no explicit provision in the Patent Act allowing it. The Patent Act was amended in May 2006 so that partial invalidity is expressly mentioned as a possibility. The amendment is related to the introduction of administrative re-examination proceedings and is expected to be available in Finland in December 2007.
A patent can be transformed into a utility model.
It is possible to limit the scope of the claims when claiming partial invalidity. This right is codified in the recent reform of the Patent Act as mentioned in question 3.5 above.
3.7 Are there any grounds on which an otherwise valid patent can be deemed unenforceable, owing to misconduct by the patent holder, or for some other reason (eg expiry of time limit)?
Chapter 6 of the Patents Act comprises provisions on compulsory licences. In addition to the specific provisions of the Patents Act it should be recognised that Art 82 of the EC Treaty may, in extraordinary situations, be relied upon by a defendant if a patentee in abuse of a dominant position refuses to grant a licence. Compulsory licences are rare in practice.
(i) Non-use
Where three years have elapsed since the grant of the patent and four years have elapsed from the filing of the application, and if the invention is not worked or brought into use to a reasonable extent, any person who wishes to work the invention in Finland may obtain a compulsory licence to do so unless legitimate grounds for failing to work the invention are shown.
(ii) Dependent patents
The proprietor of a patent for an invention whose exploitation is dependent on a patent held by another person may obtain a compulsory licence to exploit the invention protected by such patent if deemed reasonable in view of the importance of the first-mentioned invention or for other special reasons. The proprietor of a patent in respect of which a compulsory licence is granted may obtain a compulsory licence to exploit the dependent invention unless there are special reasons to the contrary.
(iii) Public interest
In the event of considerable public interest, a person who wishes to exploit commercially an invention for which another person holds a patent may obtain a compulsory licence to do so.
(iv) Prior use
Any person who, at the time the patent application was filed, was commercially exploiting the invention in this country may continue to do so, notwithstanding the grant of a patent, provided that the general nature of such previous exploitation is maintained and that the exploitation does not constitute an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his predecessor in title. Such right of exploitation shall also be afforded, subject to the same conditions, to any person who has made substantial preparations for commercial exploitation of the invention in this country. This is actually not a compulsory licence, as use that has commenced prior to the patent application is not subject to a compulsory licence, but rather an exemption from the scope of protection.
Any person who was commercially exploiting an invention in Finland which is the subject of a patent application, at the time the application documents were made available to the public, if the application results in a patent, is entitled to a compulsory licence for such exploitation, provided there are special reasons for this and also provided that he had no knowledge of the application and could not reasonably have obtained such knowledge. Such a right shall also be enjoyed, under corresponding conditions, by any person who has made substantial preparations for commercial exploitation of the invention in Finland. Compulsory licences may also relate to the period of time preceding the grant of the patent.
A compulsory licence may, as a general rule, only be granted to a person deemed to be in a position to exploit the invention in an acceptable manner and in accordance with the terms of the licence who, before filing a claim for a compulsory licence, has made a verifiable effort to obtain, on reasonable commercial terms, a licence to the patented invention. A compulsory licence does not prevent the proprietor of the patent from exploiting the invention himself or from granting licences under the patent. A compulsory licence may only be transferred to a third party together with the business in which it is exploited or was intended to be exploited.
Compulsory licences are granted in Finland by a court of law, which also decides the extent to which the invention may be exploited and determines the remuneration to be paid and any other conditions under the licence.
Misconduct by the patent holder in eg the prosecution phase has not, as such, been considered as a cause for unenforceability.
3.8 Can a patent holder bring a law suit claiming both patent infringement and unfair competition for the same set of facts?
A patent holder can bring law suits claiming both patent infringement and unfair competition for the same set of facts. Such claims may be tried in different courts as the venue for patent infringement is the Helsinki District Court, whereas claims for injunction based upon unfair competition are tried in the Market Court. Claims for damages can, however, be handled by the same court in both patent and unfair competition cases.
4.1 Who can sue for patent infringement (patent holder, exclusive licensee, non-exclusive licensee, distributor)? Does a licensee need to be registered to sue?
The patentee and the licensee (exclusive as well as non-exclusive) are entitled to initiate litigation regarding patent infringements. The licensee’s right does not have to be registered in the Register of Patents. If the licensee is suing, he must inform the patentee.
4.2 Under what conditions, if any, can an alleged infringer bring a law suit to obtain a declaratory judgment on non-infringement?
Declaratory actions can be brought by a patentee or licensee to determine whether he enjoys protection against another party on the basis of the patent, if there is uncertainty in this respect and this is prejudicial to him. Any party who carries on or intends to carry on an activity may also bring a declaratory action against the patentee in order to determine whether a particular patent constitutes an obstacle to such activity. In order to bring such action there should exist uncertainty regarding the matter. Recent court practice indicates that the cost risks for the proceedings are on the plaintiff if a party has initiated declaratory actions without proper cause.
4.3 Who can be sued for patent infringement? Can the company directors be sued personally? Under what conditions, if any, can someone be sued for inducing or contributing to patent infringement by someone else?
In Finland patent infringement proceedings are, as a rule, civil proceedings in which the company performing the infringing activity is sued. Directors of the board or directors who have been delegated responsibility for patent matters may be subject to criminal sanctions based on their own personal involvement and actions. Criminal proceedings, however, require intent and such proceedings have not in practice occurred. Inducement to such crime is also punishable, but for the above reasons even more unlikely to happen in practice. A party (not an infringement individual) inducing or contributing to patent infringement by someone else may not be sued in a civil case.
Under general procedure rules it is possible to intervene in court proceedings if the matter at hand has a hearing on the intervener’s rights. It is also possible for the plaintiff to add additional defendants when enforcing the same patent against several defendants. Such proceedings are often initiated as separate proceedings, but the cases are joined and handled together.
5.1 What options are open to a patent holder when seeking to enforce its rights in your country?
The main venue for enforcement is initiating civil infringement proceedings before the District Court of Helsinki.
Criminal proceedings are, in theory, available. A patentee may initiate criminal proceedings by reporting a potential intentional infringement to the police authorities.
Border measures are available in Finland. The patent holder may file an application for border control with the Customs Authority.
5.4 To what extent are alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods (such as arbitration or mediation) available to resolve patent disputes? If arbitration is available to assess invalidity, will your Patent Office recognise and execute an arbitral award declaring a patent invalid?
Alternative dispute resolution methods are available and frequently used, particularly in licensing and technology transfer agreements. With regard to the question of invalidity it should be observed that the Finnish Patent Office does not recognise other than court rulings on invalidity.
Patent infringement and invalidation proceedings are subject to the general Finnish Procedural Code and specific provisions in the Patent Act. Litigation is initiated by an application for a summons submitted by the plaintiff to the Helsinki District Court. After a summons has been served on the defendant, the defendant should submit a written statement of defence. The parties are usually requested to submit an additional written brief before a preliminary hearing takes place. The main hearing includes oral, witness hearings and closing arguments and presentations of their claims. The judgment is generally given by the court within a month of the main hearing.
The court is composed of one or three judges. In patent matters it is usually three judges. In addition, the judges are assisted by two court-appointed technical experts.
6.3 To what extent are documents, affidavits, witnesses and/or (court-appointed or private) expert used? Is it possible to cross-examine witnesses?
The parties have a rather high level of freedom to consider what evidence they want to submit to the court. The parties generally hear expert witnesses. Cross-examination is allowed both of witnesses and expert witnesses.
6.4 To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted, how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted, what other, if any, mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse party or from third parties?
The Finnish procedural system provides for disclosure. A party may request the court to order the opposing party to disclose documents which are relevant as evidence in the matter at hand.
6.5 What level of proof is required for establishing infringement or invalidity?
The judges have the freedom to consider the evidence that has been presented and based on that resolve if infringement has occurred or the patent should be declared invalid. The level of proof is impossible to quantify, but the evidence provided must be sufficient to convince the judge(s).
6.6 How long do patent infringement proceedings typically last? Is it possible to expedite this process?
The district court proceedings normally take between one and two years. It should, however, be observed that if invalidation proceedings are initiated as a defence the court, as a rule, stays the infringement proceedings.
6.7 What options, if any, are available to a defendant seeking to delay the proceedings? Under what conditions, if any, can proceedings be stayed? How can a plaintiff counter delaying tactics of a defendant?
The courts set deadlines for the filing of writs and schedules dates for preliminary and main hearings. Requests for extensions are frequently accepted, which in practice means that proceedings can be delayed.
7.1 What remedies are available against a patent infringer (final injunction, delivery up or destruction of infringing goods, publication of the decision, recall-order, monetary remedies, etc)?
The court may prohibit any person who infringes the exclusive right afforded by a patent from continuing or repeating the act.
Where such person intentionally infringes a patent, he shall, unless the act is punishable as an industrial property right offence under the Penal Code, be liable to a fine for a violation of a patent right. Indictment for an industrial property right offence may only be brought by the Public Prosecutor at the request of the injured party.
Any person who intentionally or negligently infringes a patent shall be liable to pay reasonable compensation for the exploitation of the invention and damages for other injury caused by the infringement. In the case of slight negligence, the compensation may be adjusted accordingly. The compensation for exploitation is usually calculated as a reasonable licence fee based on the evidence given in the case.
A person found guilty of patent infringement that is neither intentional nor negligent shall pay compensation for the exploitation of the invention if and to the extent held reasonable.
Damages in Finland are kept on a reasonable level and may not include a punitive element.
Finnish courts observe a principle of free evaluation of evidence. It is, as a rule, the claimant who provides the evidence on infringement in infringement proceedings and on invalidity in invalidity proceedings.
If a patent has been granted for a process for producing a product, any identical product produced without the consent of the proprietor of the patent shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process. In the adduction of proof to the contrary, the legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken into account.
At the request of the claimant, the court may order that the infringing objects be provisionally seized for the duration of the proceedings. Where the court has ordered seizure, the claimant is, as a rule, required to provide such security as the court requires for any damage or inconvenience that may be suffered by the opposing party due to the action.
Copies of decisions in patent matters are communicated by the court to the Patent Authority with a statement as to whether the decision has become final.
7.2 To the extent it is possible to obtain a final injunction against future infringement, is it effective against the infringer’s suppliers or customers?
An injunction is only effective against the defendant and for the activities subject to the proceedings.
7.3 What monetary remedies are available against a patent infringer (reasonable royalty, lost profits, account of profits, or some other basis)? Are punitive damages available? If so, under what conditions?
The general rule under Finnish law is that the rights holder shall receive full compensation for his loss. In practice it is often difficult to qualify the loss by evidence and the court may under the general procedural rules estimate the amount of damages. Damages comprise compensation for loss of sales, market damage (loss of goodwill) as mentioned in question 7.1 above.
8.1 Is preliminary relief available? If so, what preliminary measures are available (eg preliminary injunction) and under what conditions?
Interim injunctions can be granted by virtue of the general precautionary measure in Ch 7, s 3 of the Procedural Code or under a specific provision on interim injunction in s 68 of the Patents Act.
There are three requirements that have to be fulfilled before an interim injunction can be granted by virtue of said provision:
It is possible to obtain an interim injunction before any actual infringement takes place, provided that the patent rightholder can prove that there is a threat of patent infringement. The limited court practice in Finland on precautionary measures in patent infringement matters indicates that the standard of evidence as regards both the existence of a threat of infringement and the potential harm caused to the applicant by such infringement is relatively high. Therefore, although in theory it would be possible to obtain an interim injunction, eg at the stage before import and/or marketing commences, in practice it is unlikely that courts would grant such an injunction without a rather high likelihood that the product in question is infringing.
In its only decision regarding an interim injunction based on patent infringement, the Supreme Court of Finland set the threshold for establishing the applicant’s probable right as very high (Supreme Court 2003:118 of 2 December 2003). The decision of the Supreme Court was not unanimous. The disagreeing member of the Supreme Court held that too high a threshold would endanger the summary nature of the granting of an interim injunction and lead to the parties trying to process the merits of the case already in such procedure. The Supreme Court held that in cases where the granting of an interim injunction would entitle the applicant to enjoy his claimed right immediately, ie prior to the judgment in the main action, the threshold shall be set considerably higher than in seizure matters. As a consequence of the ruling, the courts in Finland have become hesitant in granting interim injunctions in complicated patent infringement matters and especially regarding infringement of process patents.
According to s 68 of the Patents Act, the court may, at the request of the plaintiff, grant an interim injunction on use of the patent or may order that certain objects of property be provisionally seized for the duration of the proceedings. Relief from a decision on injunction or the lifting of such measures during the course of the proceedings may be sought by separate appeal.
The requirements for an interim injunction are not described as clearly in this special provision as in the general provision of the Procedural Code. In legal literature, the requirements of s 68 of the Patents Act have been interpreted to correspond to the requirements of the general provision in the Procedural Code. However, s 68 of the Patents Act has rarely been applied and legal practice regarding the provision is non-existent. However, it is worth noting that at present the Supreme Court is assessing whether to grant leave to appeal in a case concerning an application for interim injunction under the said provision based on claimed infringement of a pharmaceutical process patent.
Relief from a decision on injunction or seizure or the lifting of such measures during the course of the proceedings may be sought by separate appeal.
8.2 Is ex parte relief available, where the defendant is given no notice at all? If so, under what conditions?
An ex parte injunction may be granted even faster (in a couple of days), but the courts tend to give the opposing party the right to be heard in interim injunction proceedings based on patent infringement. An ex parte injunction can be granted on a temporary basis without hearing the opposing party in situations where the purpose of the injunction may otherwise be compromised.
8.3 Is plaintiff entitled to ask for an order that defendant’s premises are searched and a description of the infringing goods (and the accounting relating thereto) is made in order to establish proof of infringement (saisie-contrefaçon)? If not, what other mechanisms, if any, are available for seizing and preserving evidence for trial?
In order to secure evidence of infringement, the court may, on the request of the patentee, issue a seizure order. The considerations for the court to make are, in practice, very similar to those for granting preliminary injunctions (see question 8.1).
8.4 Can the defendant put the validity of a patent in issue in preliminary injunction proceedings?
The defendant may and often does put the validity of a patent in issue in preliminary injunction proceedings. Such a claim is usually not successful in preliminary injunction proceedings, unless it is supported by considerable evidence (eg invalidation of corresponding patents in other jurisdictions or negative rulings on validity in administrative proceedings).
Preliminary injunction proceedings are, as a rule, purely documentary.
8.6 To what extent are documents, affidavits, witnesses, and/or (court-appointed or private) experts used in preliminary injunction proceedings?
Due to the fact that the proceedings are documentary, the parties generally submit as much documentary evidence, including expert statements, as they have available.
8.7 What level of proof is required to establish infringement or invalidity in preliminary injunction proceedings?
The plaintiff needs to establish that infringement is more likely than the opposite. In addition the court weighs the balance of convenience.
The interim injunction proceedings generally take about three to six months before the District Court rules on the matter.
8.9 Where a preliminary injunction is granted, is it necessary to start main proceedings to confirm the preliminary injunction?
The preliminary injunction is granted for the time until the case is finally settled or some other decision is taken. It is necessary to start main proceedings within 30 days of the date of obtaining a preliminary injunction.
9.1 What avenues of appeal are available for a defeated party to main proceeding or preliminary injunction proceedings?
Decisions of the District Court of Helsinki can be appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeals. The proceedings before the Court of Appeals are in writing, but if a party so requests a full review with oral main hearing is generally conducted.
The rulings of the Court of Appeals can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court proceedings are subject to leave. Leave is granted if the matter is of a precedential nature. Patent infringement matters are rarely granted leave.
9.2 How long do appeal proceedings typically last?
The appeals procedure before the Court of Appeals generally takes 1.5–2 years. Preliminary injunction appeals are handled more rapidly (6–12 months).
The Supreme Court generally resolves whether leave is granted within six months.
10. LITIGATION COSTS
10.1 What level of cost should one expect to incur to take a case through to a first instance decision, preliminary injunction proceedings and/or appeal proceedings?
The cost for each party (including cost for attorney and patent agent) vary from case to case. Costs at the District Court of Helsinki often range between €100,000–500,000. Party costs before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court or in preliminary injunction proceedings are usually slightly lower.
10.2 Are costs recoverable from the losing party?
The losing party shall reimburse the winning party for litigation costs. However, the courts may adjust the amount of the recoverable legal fees.
11.1 What are the important developing and emerging trends in your country’s patent law?
The amendments to intellectual property legislation implementing the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) entered into force on 1 September 2006. As Finnish intellectual property rights legislation has mainly been in accordance with the requirements of the Enforcement Directive, no major changes were introduced. The most important changes relate to the right to information, interlocutory injunctions and the publishing of judgments. According to the implementing legislation, courts can order the defendant to disclose information on the origin and distribution network of goods found to be infringing. The new provisions also include a right for the plaintiff to publish the judgment or other appropriate information on the infringement proceedings at the defendant’s expense. Furthermore, the scope for issuing interlocutory injunctions in infringement cases has been extended.
11.2 To the extent it relates to patent enforcement, outline any major patent legislation in the pipeline.
As mentioned in question 11.1 the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) has recently been implemented and it will be interesting to follow court practice on both a European and a national level.
| 12. | USEFUL REFERENCES |
| 12.1 | Please identify any useful works of reference relating to patent law |
| and patent litigation in your country including useful websites. |
Haarman P-L, Mansala M Immateriaalioikeuden lakikirja Oesch R, Pihlajamaa H Patenttioikeuskeksintöjen suoja Godenhielm B Patentskyddets omfattning i europeisk och nordis rätt
