Kristof Neefs
Kristof Neefs of Altius in Belgium explains what a recent Supreme Court
ruling on offers for sale over the internet means for patent owners

What happened in the Nouvag case?

On 19 February 2016, the Belgian Supreme Court issued a judgement in a dispute between the holder of a European patent for a liposuction device and Swiss-based medical and dental equipment manufacturer Nouvag. The court confirmed that Nouvag had not complied with an injunction prohibiting it from offering, on Belgian territory, a liposuction device that was found to infringe the patent in an earlier judgement.

The court confirmed that Nouvag had violated the injunction, essentially because the product was presented on its website and the website mentioned that Nouvag’s products are available throughout Europe. Nouvag was ordered to pay €915,000 in penalties for 183 days of non-compliance with the injunction, at €5,000 per day.

Did Nouvag take a risk by advertising the goods for sale despite the prior ruling?

It is unclear whether Nouvag actually meant to advertise the infringing device for sales in Belgium. The company does not appear to do direct sales. The website included a description of the product and details of a Belgian distributor for all of its products, among distributors for other jurisdictions. The court deduced from these circumstances that Nouvag was ready to supply the product in Belgium. It found that this was ‘an offer’ of the infringing device on Belgian territory and, therefore, that the presentation of the products on Nouvag’s website was a violation of the court order.

I would not go as far as to say that Nouvag purposely took a risk. The company was probably taken by surprise by the claim for penalties by the patentee. In any event, the judgement illustrates that once an injunction is issued in Belgium, the infringer must tread carefully and take due care to comply.

How careful must patent owners be, in light of this clarification from the Belgian Supreme Court, when offering goods for sale that are determined by the court to be infringing?

The judgement confirms that “offering” as an act of patent infringement is, in Belgium at least, broader than offers for sale. To companies selling their products all across Europe through a website, it makes sense to include a statement that the product is not available in Belgium if it is the subject of an injunction in Belgium.

How does the decision affect European patent owners and patentees seeking to litigate in Europe?

An interesting aspect of the judgement was the Supreme Court’s effect-based approach to infringement by offering a product. The court held that it was not relevant that the website displaying the offer was not hosted in Belgium, as long as the offer produced its effects in Belgium, ie, that it reached its audience here.

While it is by no means a given that the court had this in mind, this aspect of the decision could be applied by analogy to cloud-based products and applications, where the servers are not based in Belgium.

Note that the appeals court held that to comply with the injunction Nouvag could have avoided penalty payments by clarifying on its website that the product is not available in Belgium. In hindsight, not including such a statement has become a costly affair, with Nouvag now having to pay nearly €1 million in penalty fees.

Is the penalty fee amount per-day a typical feature of violating an injunction in Belgium?

Yes. To ensure compliance, an injunction is usually imposed at a penalty fee per day or per product sold in violation of the court order. In the past years, courts often set a maximum cap on the amount of penalty payments to avoid excess.

The latest interviews from IPPro Patents
The latest features from IPPro Patents
Celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year, Allied Security Trust plans to build its patent acquisition business even more. CEO Russell Binns explains
Facing unacceptable pendencies in 2003, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office dug deep to make the patent prosecution service more efficient
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
TC Heartland’s Supreme Court question may see patent owners going cold on the Eastern District of Texas
It is incumbent on practitioners and applicants to take care in drafting and prosecuting applications, says Bea Koempel-Thomas of Lee & Hayes
Is American chipmaker Qualcomm in trouble? Joachim Frommhold of Weinmann Zimmerli examines the facts
IP arguably sits on the periphery of any discussions about what a post-Brexit UK will look like, but that hasn’t stopped the country’s patent-granting authority from getting on with its job
With President Trump recently installed in the White House, will the internet industry be able to convince him to look at patents?
Acronyms such as IoT and UPC dominated discussion at this year’s London IP Summit
Country profiles
The latest country profiles from IPPro Patents
Bruno Nunes of BN IP explains how patent prosecution and licensing works in Macau, a market dominated by gaming and pharma
Tran Viet Phuong of Duong Tran offers a handy guide to patent prosecution
IPPro Connects

Visit our sister site
the worlds biggest and best IP directory
The Andean Community has stood firm in the defence of its owns interests, says Jesús Cuba and Kelly Sánchez of OMC Abogados & Consultores
The first preliminary injunction granted by a China IP court was awarded to Christian Louboutin. Dr Weili Ma of Chofn Intellectual Property explains
Patent prosecution in South Africa rarely favours the inventor, but recent reforms are aiming to change that, one little bit at a time
The Tanzania Patent Office is a useful partner in the prosecution process, says Sunday Godfrey Ndamugoba of ABC Attorneys
Dominic Ogega Mwale, managing partner at Mwale & Company, explains how to patent in Kenya
Patent owners looking for an attractive place to seek protection in Asia need look no further than Singapore, says Max Ng and Gerald Mursjid of Gateway Law Corporation