Patent Litigation in Greece
Patent activity in Greece, whether through national, European, or international filings, remains relatively low. This trend reflects multiple factors, the main being the structure of the Greek economy, which is primarily focused on trade and services. Additionally, Greece’s industrial sector is largely characterised by traditional, “low-tech” industries, such as mining, food production, and energy. A further factor is the lack of even elementary training on patent protection of engineers, scientists, lawyers and judges, associated with a culture of mistrust to institutions such as the judiciary. The above reasons limit engagement in patent filings and intellectual property defence.
As there are few patents in force, patent litigation in Greek courts is infrequent.
Absence of a Patent Litigation Decision Register
Greece lacks a centralised registry for court decisions related to patent litigation. The only publicly accessible list of decisions is available on the website of the Greek National Office of Industrial Property (OBI), with the most recent patent-related decision dating back to 2002, that is 22 years ago. This absence of a comprehensive, updated register means that judges, courts, patent attorneys and lawyers often face challenges in accessing a new case on the basis of previously judged cases, for instance, when evaluating novelty, inventive step, equivalent technical features. The absence of jurisprudence (case law) lowers also significantly the quality and the harmonisation of the decisions, as every time, the judges start from zero, judge according to their own assessment (and the quality of the argumentation of the attorneys) and do not follow the line of established jurisprudence.
Lack of specialised judges
Patent litigation in Greece is further hindered by the absence of judges specialised in patent law, an area that requires an understanding of the interface between legal principles and technological complexities. The shortage of judges with technical expertise slows down the process, complicates accurate rulings on patent cases and introduces a high risk of wrong judgments.
If a pool of judges specialised in patent litigation was created, for example at the Athens’ Court of First Instance, these judges could be thoroughly trained through available courses provided by the European Patent Office and other institutions and would further be trained on the job. It goes without saying that as there is still a low patent activity in courts, in periods of low activity, these judges would deal with ordinary, non-patent related cases.
Historic decision of the Court of First Instance recognises the profession of the European Patent Attorney
In a landmark 2023 case, a Greek patent holder brought a case against a competitor, alleging infringement of his rights derived from two Greek patents and a European patent on the same invention. In Decision 151/2023, the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Athens highlighted the largely unknown profession of Patent Attorney in Greece.
The court, without technically qualified members, initially appointed two Mechanical Engineers from the National Chamber of Engineers as expert witnesses to provide opinions on technical and patent matters in the case. Beyond purely technical analysis, the experts were asked to address essential questions, such as:
- Who filed the patent applications, and when? Who holds the rights?
- Was the application examined by the National Office?
- Does the applicant have a valid claim to priority rights?
- Are the claims clear and concise? Is the subject matter new and inventive?
- What is the scope of the claims?
- Has the European Patent been validated in Greece, and were the claims restricted after examination by the EPO?
- What is the final scope of the claims, and are the claims currently infringed?
Given that only a specialised Patent Attorney could effectively answer these questions, a request was submitted to replace the appointed experts. The Court granted this request and, for the first time, following the request, appointed two Mechanical Engineers from the list of nine qualified European Patent Attorneys who had passed the EQE.
At the court proceedings, the expertise of the two nominated patent attorneys was recognised by the parties and this smoothened the rest of the procedure. They delivered a thorough report, which helped greatly the court to deliver decision which is almost identical to the report.
This decision marks a significant milestone in Greece, recognising the European Patent Institute (epi) and the expertise of its members. By acknowledging the specialised role of Patent Attorneys in cases of patent infringement, this ruling both elevates the profession in Greece and creates new opportunities for young scientists interested in this field.
The road ahead
The landmark decision in Case 151/2023 should serve as a precedent for the future of patent litigation in Greece. The systematic involvement of European Patent Attorneys in such cases can enhance trust between the parties and provide judges with deeper technical insights, ultimately leading to higher-quality decisions.
Despite the current challenges, Greek judges demonstrate a commendable commitment to integrating the principles of patent law into their practice, striving to understand complex technologies and delivering decisions of relatively high quality.
To further improve the system, the state could take two crucial steps: first, establish a dedicated pool of judges specialised in patent law, and second, make patent-related decisions from the Courts of Appeal and the High Court accessible for consultation. These measures would significantly ease and expedite the work of all stakeholders involved in patent litigation.
By systematically utilising European Patent Attorneys, developing a specialised judiciary, and providing access to court decisions for research, Greece could improve the quality of rulings, save time, enhance legal certainty, and reduce costs for both the parties and the state.
