EPLAW Patent Blog

NL - Middenweg v. Multispike

Middenweg v. Multispike, District Court The Hague 19 November 2010, case / docket number: 378904 / KG ZA 10-1338

In this enforcement dispute, the President of the District Court of The Hague confirmed that the enforcement of an injunction can only under very strict circumstances be suspended, i.e. when the power to enforce is misused. Misuse can e.g. be held when it is clear that the decision leading to the injunction was based on a clear legal or factual error. According to the President, serious concerns on the validity of the Patent on the basis of newly introduced prior art do not qualify as such: an enforcement dispute is not a forum to raise new defenses. Partly for this reason the President refused to lift the injunction, leaving the injuncted party to fight the injunction in appeal.

Read the decision (in Dutch) here.

headnote and summary: Geert Theuws

NL - Multispike v Middenweg

Multispike B.V. v. Middenweg B.V., Cooperatieve Rabobank Bommelerwaard U.A. and Cooperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A. and J.B. Beheer B.V. and [X] v. Middenweg B.V., Middenweg Agro B.V., Cooperatieve Rabobank Bommelerwaard U.A. and Cooperatieve Bloemenveiling FloraHolland U.A., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, preliminary proceedings, joint cases No. KG ZA 10-1062 and KG ZA 10-1107

Patents relating to improved orchid culturing method. The plants obtained while using the patented method were sold via an auction. According to the judge in preliminary injunction proceedings, such an auction can be seen as the providing of intermediary services at the sale of goods obtained directly as a result of the patented method, against which one can not act based on patent law.

Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.

Head note: provisional