INSIGHTS In July and August 2025, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its first permanent injunction covering the United Kingdom and its first preliminary injunction covering Spain. This means UPC injunctions have expanded beyond the territories of the 18 states that have signed and ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) to non-UPCA jurisdictions, which is a development that stands to shape global patent litigation strategy in the years ahead.
Meanwhile, as UPC invalidation proceedings have cross‑border effect, many holders of conventional European Patents (EP) have opted out of UPC jurisdiction. This strategic choice has in turn elevated the importance of national courts, particularly in the Netherlands, a jurisdiction with a long tradition of long‑arm jurisdiction and cross‑border injunctions practices that should draw particular attention from Chinese enterprises.
As a gateway to Europe, the Netherlands is home to the Port of Rotterdam, one of the world's largest ports, and a highly efficient logistics network, making it a key hub for Chinese companies entering Europe. Many Chinese multinationals have set up subsidiaries or branches there. Yet opportunities come with significant injunction risks:
On the one hand, the Netherlands serves as the European distribution center for many companies, a Dutch domestic injunction can force a company to restructure warehousing and logistics across the entire European market.
On the other hand, and more importantly, Dutch courts have a well‑established practice of granting cross‑border injunctions covering multiple EU member states, making the Netherlands a preferred forum for patentees alongside the UK and Germany. Many Chinese enterprises have been involved in such disputes.
This article analyzes the Dutch injunction framework to help Chinese enterprises strengthen their defenses while expanding into Europe.
1. Grant of Injunctions
Under the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) and Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), Dutch courts may grant preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions depending on the procedural stage.
A. Competent Courts
Patent litigation in the Netherlands follows a two‑instance system. The District Court of The Hague has exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement and invalidity under the Dutch Patent Act (DPA), with appeals lying to the Court of Appeal of The Hague. Both courts have specialized IP chambers staffed by judges with strong patent law backgrounds, many with technical expertise, ensuring high consistency and predictability.
This exclusive jurisdiction can be circumvented. A notable example, in the 2021 patent dispute between Hanwha and Longi, in which Hanwha established jurisdiction by applying for asset and evidence seizure against Longi's Dutch subsidiary before the Rotterdam District Court[1]. The court ultimately granted a cross-border preliminary injunction covering nine European countries.
B. Procedures for Granting Injunctions
When initiating patent infringement litigation, claimants typically seek both preliminary and permanent injunctions. Unlike proceedings on the merits, which generally take at least 18 months to conclude, expedited preliminary relief proceedings allow claimants to quickly secure favorable negotiating leverage.
In practice, Dutch preliminary injunction proceedings are predominantly inter partes and decided by a single judge. The timeline from filing to decision usually ranges from 1 to 3 months. Since no fixed statutory deadline governs preliminary relief, courts enjoy broad discretion in scheduling hearings and issuing rulings. In exceptionally urgent cases, judges may even deliver oral rulings immediately after a hearing. For instance, in Searle v. Sandoz[2], the court granted a preliminary injunction in inter partes proceedings within just seven days.
By contrast, ex parte proceedings remain exceptional under Article 1019e DCCP, available only where urgency is such that any delay would cause irreparable harm. In such scenarios, courts may rule on the claimant's application without hearing the defendant, often on the same day or the day after filing, drastically shortening the time to obtain relief.
Notably, while standard proceedings on the merits generally take around 18 months, the District Court of The Hague offers an optional accelerated track for first-instance cases, the accelerated proceedings on the merits (also known as the "VRO regime"). If granted leave to use this regime, claimants must submit all evidence on the day of filing. The court then sets and enforces a strict procedural timetable, with a first-instance judgment rendered within 12–15 months. This significantly influences the negotiating posture and litigation strategy of both parties, particularly in licensing-related disputes.
C. Conditions for Granting Injunctions
Like Germany, Dutch courts will automatically issue a permanent injunction once infringement is established at first instance. Nevertheless, the Dutch first‑instance system is not inherently defendant‑unfriendly, as the Netherlands does not adopt Germany's bifurcated framework: the District Court of The Hague has exclusive jurisdiction over both infringement and invalidity, and Dutch courts attach exceptional importance to the validity of the patent‑in‑suit. Whether the case is at the main proceedings or preliminary injunction stage, once the defendant raises an invalidity defense, the court will prioritize validity over infringement. This approach not only buys defendants valuable time to delay a permanent injunction in Dutch proceedings but also provides a powerful defensive tool for those facing parallel infringement actions in Germany.
This advantage stems from Germany's bifurcated system, which frequently results in infringement findings, injunctions, and enforcement before validity is finally determined, creating what is known as the "injunction gap". By promptly filing an invalidity action on the same European Patent with Dutch courts after being sued in Germany, a defendant may obtain an invalidity ruling first or persuade the German court to stay proceedings pending the Dutch decision, thereby mitigating the structural risks of the German system and the associated injunction exposure.
In contrast to the automatic permanent injunction following an infringement finding, the grant of a preliminary injunction depends on a rigorous assessment of three elements: the plaintiff's prima facie case of infringement, the existence of an urgent interest justifying rapid relief, and a fair balance of interests between the parties. Dutch courts have repeatedly rejected preliminary injunctions where the balance of interests weighs against such relief.
In Sisvel v. Xiaomi[3], Court of Appeal of The Hague, the court denied relief on grounds of disproportionate balance of interests. The court emphasized that the patent in suit was nearing expiration, Xiaomi had provided security prior to the appeal, and Sisvel, a Non‑Practicing Entity (NPE) focused on licensing, could be fully compensated by damages. A preliminary injunction would have disrupted Xiaomi’s sales, hindered its market entry in the Netherlands, and inflicted disproportionate, irreparable harm.
In Ericsson v. Apple[4], the District Court of The Hague rejected a preliminary injunction because the patented feature constituted only a minor component of the accused product, yet granting one would have blocked sales of the entire product, resulting in clear disproportionality.
In addition, undue delay by a patentee in enforcing its rights after discovering infringement will lead the court to find a lack of the required "urgent interest". This standard is applied with particular strictness in Standard‑Essential Patent (SEP) disputes. The District Court of The Hague held at first instance in Sisvel v. Xiaomi[5] that while the CJEU judgment in Huawei v. ZTE does not bar SEP holders from seeking injunctions, SEP claims require a stronger showing of urgency than ordinary patents. The court found that six years of prolonged Fair, Reasonable and Non‑Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing negotiations between Sisvel and Xiaomi clearly negated any urgency. As a practical result, Dutch courts rarely grant preliminary injunctions in SEP cases.
2. Effects of Injunctions
In the Netherlands, both preliminary and permanent injunctions take effect upon service on the defendant. The defendant must immediately cease the infringing acts, or face fines or criminal imprisonment.
Unlike most jurisdictions worldwide, Dutch courts rarely require plaintiffs to provide security for the enforcement of injunctions. Preliminary injunctions also do not lapse merely because the plaintiff is slow to commence proceedings on the merits. These characteristics make enforcement easier and less costly for plaintiffs.
Another major reason Dutch injunctions are popular among right holders is the long-standing support of Dutch courts for cross-border injunctions. Under the Brussels I-bis Regulation and general principles of jurisdiction in tort disputes under Dutch law, Dutch courts may establish jurisdiction over an infringement action where the anchor defendant is domiciled in the Netherlands and has a close connection (such as control or joint tort) with other foreign co-defendants. The courts may then grant cross-border injunctions covering multiple EU member states.
For example, in the 2021 patent infringement action brought by Hanwha against Longi, the District Court of Rotterdam established personal jurisdiction over Longi's Dutch subsidiary based on Article 4 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation, even though the European Patent in suit did not take effect in the Netherlands, and granted a cross-border injunction.
In fact, such jurisdictional connections are not difficult to establish in other EU member states. However, most member states are reluctant to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over other countries based on the principle of comity. This has made the Netherlands one of the most important forums for right holders to enforce patents in Europe.
It is worth noting that a European Patent (EP) is composed of patents that take effect independently in each designated contracting state to the European Patent Convention (EPC). EU law, particularly Article 24(4) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation[6], expressly provides that each member state has exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of patents registered or granted in its territory.
The CJEU held in GAT v. LuK[7] and Roche v. Primus[8] that the exclusive jurisdiction of member states over the validity of their own patents applies to all proceedings, and that personal jurisdiction of a member state court in infringement actions does not cover cases where multiple foreign defendants commit infringements in other member states. This means that once a defendant raises a validity challenge against the foreign parts of a European Patent in preliminary relief or merits proceedings, the court must stay the proceedings to await the validity ruling of the relevant foreign court and may not directly grant a cross-border injunction covering infringements in other member states.
Nevertheless, these judgments have not dampened the willingness of Dutch courts to grant cross-border injunctions. With the development of EU jurisprudence, the Dutch approach to cross-border injunctions has gradually been recognized in new CJEU rulings, opening the way for long-arm jurisdiction by EU member states and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Key CJEU Precedents:
The CJEU ruled that Article 22(4) of the Brussels I Regulation (now Article 24(4)) does not preclude national courts from granting preliminary injunctions even where a defendant challenges the validity of foreign patent parts, because preliminary proceedings do not issue a final ruling on foreign validity and thus avoid jurisdictional conflicts.
The CJEU further confirmed in this case that personal jurisdiction of a member state court over patent infringement acts in non-member states is likewise not affected by validity challenges raised by the defendant. Member state courts may continue to hear and decide the merits without affecting the validity of non-member state patents[11].
This jurisprudence provides an important basis for EU member states to grant cross-border injunctions covering non-EU member states (such as Turkey and the UK) and for the UPC to grant injunctions covering non-UPCA member states.
Recent UPC Precedents:
On 28 January 2025, the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division delivered the first UPC long-arm jurisdiction ruling in Fujifilm v. Kodak[12], confirming UPC jurisdiction over patent infringement actions involving UK patent elements. In a parallel proceeding arising from the same case[13], the UPC Mannheim Local Division affirmed and applied the BSH judgment, and issued the first permanent injunction covering the UK on 18 July 2025.
On 14 August 2025, in Dyson v. Dreame[14], the UPC Hamburg Local Division relied on the BSH precedent to issue the first preliminary injunction covering Spain, which has not yet ratified the UPCA.
In the high-profile case of Sol IP v. BYD brought by an Avanci automotive patent pool member, the plaintiff pursued the same approach. When initiating infringement proceedings before the UPC The Hague Local Division, it sought injunctive relief covering both UPCA member states and non-UPCA jurisdictions including Spain.
These developments deserve close attention from Chinese enterprises operating in the European market. The risk of cross-border injunctions cascading across multiple jurisdictions from a single Dutch or UPC proceeding has become a structural feature of the European enforcement landscape.
3. Defense Strategies for Chinese Enterprises
The Netherlands is a strategic legal and commercial choke point for Europe, and its injunctions represent a major liability for Chinese exporters. Although Dutch courts balance interests and decline to grant injunctions based on weak patents, their long‑arm and cross‑border practice confers extraterritorial deterrence.
Based on PurpleVine's dispute resolution experience, we recommend following practical strategies to address Dutch injunctions:
A. Pre‑emptively File a Protective Letter
Upon identifying potential risks of Dutch infringement risks, companies may submit a protective letter to the District Court of The Hague in advance, setting out arguments on invalidity and non-infringement. This practice can prevent courts from issuing ex parte injunctions without hearings or hearing the defendant's defense.
The letter stays valid for 6 months, and its term can be extended for another 6 months each time through repeated submission. Courts will take the letter's submissions into account when ruling on patentee's ex parte injunction application.
It should be noted that the letter will be forwarded to the patentee once relevant relief claims are filed, and its contents can be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings. Companies should avoid statements that could undermine their litigation position or reveal strategic intentions prematurely. Effective use of this mechanism requires accurate early-stage risk assessment, carefully coordinated litigation and negotiation planning, and professionally drafted submissions.
B. Pursue Proactive Invalidation Proceedings
Companies can collect invalidation evidence and raise validity defenses or counterclaims in both interim relief and proceedings on the merits. It is an effective strategy to delay or block injunctive decisions, especially in Dutch courts that attach high priority to patent validity review.
When facing multi-jurisdictional patent infringement proceedings, companies may initiate parallel invalidity actions in the relevant jurisdictions. Such actions can prompt Dutch courts to stay proceedings pending validity rulings from foreign courts.
C. Voluntarily Provide Security
Voluntarily providing security for potential damages, such as bank guarantees or escrow arrangements, can rebut a claimant's assertion of urgent interest and counter arguments of imbalance between the parties, thereby lowering the likelihood of preliminary injunction issuance.. In SEP-related disputes, such security also constitutes important evidence of an implementer's willingness to take a licence on FRAND terms.
D. Seek Anti‑suit Injunctions from Favourable Jurisdictions
For cross-border SEP disputes involving Dutch proceedings, companies may apply to courts in favourable jurisdictions for anti-suit injunctions prohibiting patentees from seeking or enforcing injunctions within the Netherlands. Where such orders carry substantial financial penalties, they may compel patentees to reassess their position and re-engage in licensing negotiations.
Reference
[1] Hanwha Solutions Corporation v. LONGi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., the District Court of Rotterdam, Oct. 1, 2021, Case No. C/10/621252/KG ZA 21-563.
[2] G.D. Searle v. Sandoz B.V., The District Court of the Hague, Jan. 8, 2019, Case No. C/09/56199 / KG ZA 18-1112.
[3] Sisvel International S.A. v Xiaomi, The Hague Court of Appeal, Mar. 17, 2020, Case No. C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462.
[4] LM Ericsson v. Apple, The Hague District Court, May. 9, 2022, Case No. C/09/624012 / KG ZA 22-42.
[5] Sisvel International S.A. v Xiaomi, The Hague District Court, Aug. 1, 2019, Case No. C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462.
[6] Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Article 24, The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: … (4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place.
[7] Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), July. 13, 2006, Case No. C-4/03, “ In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 16(4) of the [Brussels] Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection.”.
[8] Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus and Milton Goldenberg, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), July. 13, 2006, Case No. C-539/03, “the answer to the questions referred must be that Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them.”.
[9] Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber), July. 12 2012, Case No. C-616/10, “… the court before which the interim proceedings have been brought does not make a final decision on the validity of the patent invoked but makes an assessment as to how the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of the regulation would rule in that regard, and will refuse to adopt the provisional measure sought if it considers that there is a reasonable, non-negligible possibility that the patent invoked would be declared invalid by the competent court. In those circumstances, it is apparent that there is no risk of conflicting decisions…”.
[10] BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), Feb. 25 2025, Case No. C‑339/22, “… the exclusive jurisdiction rule laid down in Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation concerns only the part of the dispute relating to the validity of the patent. Accordingly, a court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled, which has jurisdiction, under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in an action alleging infringement of a patent granted in another Member State, does not lose that jurisdiction merely because, as its defence, that defendant challenges the validity of that patent.” “… the meaning of Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, must be interpreted strictly since it establishes exclusive jurisdiction which is an exception to the general rule, set out in Article 4 of that regulation, that the courts for the place where the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction.” “… the Brussels I bis Regulation seeks to ensure legal certainty by making the rules of jurisdiction highly predictable. Such an objective could not be achieved if it were accepted that, depending on the defence chosen by the defendant and, as the case may be, whenever the defendant considers it appropriate – in particular where the rules of procedure of the forum permit such a defence to be raised at any stage of the proceedings – a court of a Member State would lose its jurisdiction in an action of which it has properly been seised.” “… such a division does not mean that the court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled that is seised of the infringement action should disregard the fact that an action for a declaration that the patent granted in another Member State is invalid has been duly brought by that defendant in that other Member State. If it considers it justified, in particular where it takes the view that there is a reasonable, non-negligible possibility of that patent being declared invalid by the court of that other Member State that has jurisdiction, the court seised of the infringement action may, where appropriate, stay the proceedings, which allows it to take account, for the purpose of ruling on the infringement action, of a decision given by the court seised of the action seeking a declaration of invalidity.”
[11] BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), Feb. 25 2025, Case No. C‑339/22, “… the court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled which is seised, as in the case in the main proceedings, on the basis of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, of an infringement action in the context of which the issue of the validity of a patent granted or validated in a third State is raised as a defence, does have jurisdiction to rule on that issue if none of the restrictions referred to in paragraphs 63 to 65 [specific conventions or applicable lis pendens rules] of the present judgment is applicable, given that the decision of that court sought in that regard is not such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State, or to cause its national register to be amended.”
[12] FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak Holding GmbH and Others, UPC Local division, Düsseldorf, Jan. 28, 2025, UPC_CFI_355/2023, “If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit.”
[13] FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak Holding GmbH and Others, UPC Local division, Mannheim, July. 18, 2025, UPC_CFI_365/2023.
[14] Dyson Technology Limited v. DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED and Others, UPC Local division, Hamburg, Aug. 14, 2025, UPC_CFI_387/2025.
Author
Vivian(Qin) Wang
Ms. Vivian (Qin) Wang is a qualified Chinese lawyer with 15 years of experience in the intellectual property industry. Her expertise spans the full IP value chain, from patent strategy and filing to licensing, litigation, and patent asset commercialization. She specializes in litigation management, patent licensing, and the monetization of IP assets. Her key areas of practice include patent licensing negotiations, litigation settlements, designing licensing programs, patent portfolio commercialization, and drafting licensing agreements. Prior to joining PurpleVine IP Group, she worked at ZTE Corporation and Longji Green Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Ms. Wang holds a Master’s degree in Law from Northwest University of Political Science and Law and is qualified as both a Chinese attorney and a Chinese patent attorney. Contact Vivian at vivian.wang@purplevineip.com.
Eren(Xi) HE
Before joining PurpleVine IP Group, Mr. Xi He worked at ZTE, where he was responsible for managing and executing licensing strategies related to communication standard essential patents (SEPs). With over six years of experience in the IP field, he has been involved in large-scale international cross-licensing projects, patent pool operations, as well as patent transactions and valuation analyses. Mr. He is well-versed in the policies of major international standards organizations, such as 3GPP, and specializes in the full life-cycle management of SEP portfolios, as well as business strategy and external negotiations in licensing operations. Contact Mr. He at eren.he@purplevineip.com.
Robin(Danlei) Feng
Ms. Danlei Feng, a licensing assistant at PurpleVine IP, has accumulated 2 years of experience, assisting the team in patent litigation searches, analysis, due diligence, and legal assessments in numerous global patent licensing and dispute resolution cases. These cases span multiple technical fields, including cellular communications (4G/5G), Wi-Fi, audio and video codecs (AVC/H.264, HEVC/H.265, VVC/H.266, VP9, AV1, AAC), wireless charging (Qi), and more. Ms. Feng holds a Master’s degree in Law from Sichuan University and is qualified to practice law in China. Contact Ms. Feng at robin.feng@purplevineip.com.
