blog
IP2Innovate

Report University of Maastricht "Proportionaliteit in het octrooirecht"

In de motie van Tweede Kamerlid Amhaouch (CSA) wordt de regering verzocht te onderzoeken of het proportionaliteitsbeginsel voldoende verankerd is in het Nederlandse octrooirecht, en zo nee, te onderzoeken hoe dit beginsel verankerd kan worden. Het proportionaliteitsbeginsel houdt in dat een rechter bij de beoordeling meeweegt of een gevorderde maatregel (bijvoorbeeld een verbod) in verhouding staat tot de geconstateerde inbreuk op een octooi. In het rapport wordt geconcludeerd dat het proportionaliteitsbeginsel uit de Europese Handhavingsrichtlijn in relatie tot octrooi-inbreukverboden voldoende is vertaald in het Nederlandse octrooirecht.

De Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 kent geen expliciete proportionaliteitstoets, ook niet na implementatie van de Richtlijn betreffende de handhaving van intellectuele-eigendomsrechten (de Handhavingsrichtlijn).

Tijdens het commissiedebat van de vaste commissie voor EZK van 25 mei 2022 werd u verzocht de Kamer nader te informeren over inbreukverboden en proportionaliteit in het octrooirecht.

U heeft de Kamer bij brief van 20 juni 2022 geinformeerd dat u geen aanleiding ziet om een proportionaliteitstoets in de Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 op te nemen (Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2021–2022, 30 635, nr. 9).

Bij motie van Tweede Kamerlid Amhaouch (CDA) van 20 december 2022 is verzocht om een nader onderzoek naar de verankering van het proportionaliteitsbeginsel in het Nederlandse octrooirecht. Ter uitvoering van deze motie is een onafhankelijk onderzoek uitgevoerd door de Universiteit Maastricht.

In het onderzoeksrapport wordt vastgesteld dat uw Kamerbrief van 20 juni 2022 al buitengewoon helder de situatie in Nederland schetst en wordt geconcludeerd dat als gevolg van de rechtstreekse werking van de Handhavingsrichtlijn de Nederlandse rechter het proportionaliteitsbeginsel onbelemmerd kan en ook moet toepassen. Daarmee is de toepassing van het proportionaliteitsbeginsel voldoende verankerd in het Nederlandse octrooirecht.

Verder concludeert de Universiteit Maastricht dat het onderwerp zich op dit moment ook niet leent voor nadere vastlegging in wetgeving. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat geen sprake is van duidelijk uitgekristalliseerde inzichten in wat wel en wat niet in de prakijk door de rechter meegewogen kan of dient te worden bij de toepassing van het proportionaliteitsbeginsel. Om die reden wordt aanbevolen af te zien van codificatie en ruimte te geven aan nadere rechtsontwikkeling door de rechter.

Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

IP2I calls on European Commission to protect Europe’s patent system from abuse

A new academic study by economists at the universities of Bordeaux, Grenoble, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona) highlights how patent assertion entities (PAEs) are continuing to take advantage of weaknesses in Europe’s patent system. The study, entitled Patent Privateering, looks at one specific method of patent abuse. Patent privateering is a term to describe a situation where a patent owner hands patents to a patent assertion entity (PAE) to exploit for mutual benefit, allowing the patent owner to maintain a secret stake in the patents. The study concluded that patent privateering is widespread in Europe. The practise has been around for many years but as other jurisdictions including the US have made it harder, Europe’s patent system is a ripe target for abuse. This is largely because patent courts in Europe do not apply the principle of proportionality, and instead hand out injunctions to patent owners almost automatically.
IP2Innovate

The UPC - an opportunity to get Europe’s patents house in order

With Austria signed up, the Unified Patent Court agreement has now been ratified by the required 13 member countries. The dream of forging one single patent jurisdiction for Europe is on course to become a reality, after decades of uncertainty.
IP2Innovate

IP2Innovate response to the Commission’s Call for Evidence on the Digital Fitness Check

IP2Innovate welcomes the Commission’s Digital Fitness Check and its commitment to delivering a simpler, more competitive Europe. As a coalition of small and large companies that create innovative products and services in Europe and that collectively hold thousands of European patents, IP2Innovate strongly supports efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens for companies while maintaining high standards of protection for fundamental rights, consumer safety and European values. A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents. The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), adopted in 2004, requires remedies for patent infringement to be proportionate but does not set out clear criteria for how proportionality should be assessed in relation to today’s complex digital and connected technologies – such as AI systems, IoT devices, semiconductors, smart vehicles or critical infrastructure. As a result, the lack of clear rules on how to ensure remedies are proportionate in relation to complex products has led to the de facto automatic granting of injunctions in patent cases, which result in the removal of entire product lines from the market even when the patent infringement relates to a minor feature of a complex product that incorporates thousands of patented components1. For complex products automatic injunctions create excessive litigation risk, legal uncertainty and significant disruption to supply chains, investment and innovation, and force Europe’s digital innovators to pay excessively high licensing fees for patents to settle patent lawsuits. This situation is to the detriment of Europe’s industrial base and competitiveness. Modernising IPRED to clarify how courts should assess proportionality and consider alternative remedies where appropriate would directly support the Commission’s simplification agenda. While this would require targeted amendments to the IPRED, the overall effect would be a reduction in regulatory burdens through: • Reduced litigation risk and administrative burden, particularly for SMEs and companies developing complex digital products; • Improved legal certainty and predictability, enabling companies to invest with confidence; • Lower financial and operational disruption, safeguarding innovation, jobs and supply chains. Amending the IPRED to provide further specificity on proportionality in patent litigation would not impact a patent holder’s ability to enforce its patent rights, but would make sure such enforcement is appropriately balanced in the digital age. Additionally, amending the IPRED would help reduce the number of avoidable court cases by making appropriate settlements between patent owners and innovative product companies more likely. As a result, courts would face a lower workload and could handle the remaining cases more efficiently, ultimately strengthening trust in the European patent system. A clearer, more balanced framework would align Europe with other regions of the world, enhance Europe’s global competitiveness, and prevent distortive practices that extract value without contributing to innovation. This issue is particularly well‑suited to be addressed at EU level, as digital products and services circulate seamlessly across the entire Single Market. Divergent interpretations of IPRED’s proportionality requirement create fragmentation, legal uncertainty and opportunities for forum‑shopping. Because patent enforcement rules directly affect the functioning of the Single Market, action by individual Member States cannot entirely resolve these inconsistencies. Only EU‑level reform can ensure uniformity and promote a proportionate and consistent application of remedies across jurisdictions. Modernising IPRED therefore directly supports the Commission’s objective of “a more cost-effective and innovation-friendly implementation of European rules – all the while maintaining high standards and core objectives of the rules”. This is exactly what IP2Innovate is calling for with the modernisation of the IPRED to clarify how courts should assess proportionality and consider alternative remedies where appropriate. Experience shows that non-binding clarification is not sufficient to address this structural problem. The Commission’s 2017 guidance on IPRED did not materially change judicial practice or reduce the near-automatic granting of injunctions in patent cases. More than two decades after its adoption, IPRED requires targeted modernisation to ensure that Europe’s patent enforcement system supports – rather than hinders – the Union’s objectives of competitiveness, simplification and technological leadership. About IP2Innovate IP2Innovate is a coalition of small and large research-intensive companies that develop innovative products and services in Europe, collectively holding thousands of European patents, as well as industry associations representing more than 40 companies. The coalition works with policymakers, the legal profession and judicial authorities to promote a balanced and innovation-friendly European patent system that supports investment, competitiveness and the successful commercialisation of new technologies in Europe. 1. This conclusion has been confirmed by the recently published Commission’s study on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Contact: contact@ip2innovate.eu https://ip2innovate.eu/
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2025 - Website door Two Impress