Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Publishing firms

Legal Developments worldwide

One interim injunction against two parties in the same judicial district

November 2010 - Intellectual Property. Legal Developments by Norrbom Vinding Law Firm, member of ius laboris.

More articles by this firm.

In one and the same proceeding, a patent holder successfully applied for an interim injunction against two competitors who were infringing its patent and design.

In Denmark, the statutory provisions on interim injunctions are contained in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. However, many other sections of the Danish Administration of Justice Act also play a role in injunction proceedings. One of those sections provides how two or more claims by a plaintiff can be joined in one proceeding. The question in this case was if a patent holder could seek an interim injunction against two parties in one and the same proceeding?   A manufacturer of water coolers applied for an interim injunction against two competitors at the same time. The competitors were domiciled in the same judicial district and were allegedly infringing the patent holder's patent and design.   The competitors, however, did not believe that the patent holder should be allowed to ‚Äėcut corners' in this way on the basis of s 250 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Since s 250 does not feature in the part of the Danish Administration of Justice Act which deals with interim injunctions, the two competitors argued that an interim injunction could not be sought against both of them in one and the same proceeding.  

One application was enough
On appeal, the High Court affirmed the enforcement court's ruling that the patent holder was allowed to seek an injunction against both competitors in one and the same proceedings because the claims and allegations were identical and because the competitors were domiciled in the same judicial district. The fact that the part of the Danish Administration of Justice Act which deals with interim injunctions does not specifically refer to s 250 did not mean that the patent holder had to file two separate applications.


Norrbom Vinding notes:

  • that the ruling is interesting because it shows that the part of the Danish Administration of Justice Act which deals with interim injunctions is not an exhaustive collection of the provisions that may be applied by the enforcement court in injunction proceedings; and
  • that the ruling does not change the fact that injunction applications cannot be heard together if the parties are not domiciled within the same judicial district.

www.norrbomvinding.com