The Finnish Market Court serves as the court of first instance for patent litigation matters in Finland. It is a specialized court with jurisdiction over intellectual property right matters, among other areas.

In patent cases, the Finnish Market Court’s panel typically consists of three legally qualified members and one market court engineer with a technical background. The composition may be adjusted depending on the nature and complexity of the case, and additional expert members may be appointed when necessary.

Additionally, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has established a local division in Helsinki. During the transitional period, parties must decide whether to initiate proceedings concerning European Patents before the UPC or the national courts. The Helsinki Local Division operates in Finnish, Swedish, and English.

As to the appeal proceedings, please refer to question 3 below.

In Finland, patent litigation proceedings consist of a written phase and of an oral main hearing. Proceedings commence with a written phase, which typically involves multiple rounds of written submissions. The Finnish Market Court may hold a procedural hearing to address procedural issues. Additionally, it generally conducts an oral preparatory hearing before the main oral hearing.

Infringement claims and invalidity counterclaims are usually handled within the same proceedings. However, the Finnish Market Court may, for specific reasons, suspend the infringement proceedings until the invalidity counterclaim has been finally decided.

Claim construction is not typically addressed separately but as part of the overall infringement and validity analysis.

The Finnish Market Court has certain discretion to determine whether issues of liability and damages are heard together or separately. For instance, it may issue an interim judgment on liability before proceeding to assess damages.

In Finland, patent proceedings typically take between 1.5 and 2 years from filing to a first-instance decision, with timelines influenced by the complexity and specifics of each case.

Parties may appeal decisions of the Finnish Market Court to the Finnish Supreme Court (final decisions and decisions on precautionary measures), provided that the Finnish Supreme Court grants leave to appeal. Leave may be granted only if the case is deemed important for the application of law in similar cases or for the uniformity of case law, due to a procedural or other error, or for another compelling reason to grant a leave to appeal. Such leave is granted relatively infrequently and no appeals are permitted against decisions relating to interim orders on precautionary measures.

As a main rule, Finnish Market Court’s decisions are directly enforceable. However, the Finnish Supreme Court may order that enforcement be suspended or discontinued pending the outcome of the appeal.

The processing time for a leave to appeal application is, on average, approximately four to six months. If leave is granted, the total duration for both the leave application and the appeal proceedings typically ranges from 16 to 18 months.

In addition to patent disputes, the Finnish Market Court handles appeals concerning the Finnish Patent and Registration Office’s decisions concerning, e.g., patent registrations and oppositions. In such administrative matters, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, provided that it grants a leave to appeal.

According to Section 3(1) of the Finnish Patents Act (550/1967, as amended; Section 16 of the new Patents Act 653/2026 that will enter into force on 1 June 2027, hereinafter the “New Finnish Patents Act”), the following acts constitute direct patent infringement:

(1) manufacturing, offering, putting on the market, or using a product that is protected by the patent, or importing or possessing such a product for the said purposes;

(2) using a patented method or offering such a method for use in Finland, if the person is aware or should have been aware that the method may not be used without the proprietor’s consent; and

(3) offering, putting on the market, or using a product immediately obtained by a process that is protected by the patent, or importing or possessing such a product for the said purposes.

Yes, the concept of indirect patent infringement is recognized. Pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 17 of the New Finnish Patents Act), no person other than the proprietor may, without the proprietor’s consent, exploit the invention by offering or supplying, to any person who is not entitled to exploit the invention, a means of using the invention in Finland that relates to some essential element of the invention, if the person offering or supplying the means knows or should have known that the means are suitable and intended for operating the invention. The foregoing does not apply where the means are staple commercial products, except where the person offering or supplying the means seeks to induce the recipient to commit any of the directly infringing acts mentioned above.

According to Section 39 of the Finnish Patents Act, the scope of protection conferred by a patent shall be determined by the claims, while the description may serve as guidance in interpreting the claims. Section 22 of the New Finnish Patents Act remains largely unchanged but clarifies that the description “shall be used” as guidance in interpreting the claims. Finland has joined the European Patent Conventiom (EPC) and, thus, the scope of protection of patent claims is assessed in alignment with Article 69 of the EPC and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the EPC.

Doctrine of equivalence exists in Finnish legal practice; however, there is no single codified test established for it. The Finnish Market Court usually applies an overall assessment of whether the element that is claimed to be equivalent solves the same technical problem in a substantially equivalent manner as the element mentioned in the patent claim.

Finnish Patents Act does not contain express provisions concerning prosecution history estoppel. However, Finnish courts apply the principle of free assessment of evidence and, thus, the court may observe statements made during prosecution on a case-by-case basis. The Finnish Market Court has in some cases used the prosecution history in interpreting a patent claim.

The most significant defences are non-infringement (the product or method does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent) and invalidity (which must be raised as a separate counteraction). Additionally, parties may invoke prior use, exhaustion, or experimental use.

Pursuant to Section 52 of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 113 of the New Finnish Patents Act), a patent may be declared invalid due to lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficiency of disclosure, added subject matter, lack of entitlement, and lack of patent eligibility.

According to Section 2 of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 13 of the New Finnish Patents Act), prior art includes everything that has become public before the priority date of the patent. For purposes of novelty, the prior art also includes what has been described in a patent or utility model application that has been filed before the priority date and eventually becomes public. In the novelty assessment, apart from combinations with common general knowledge, multiple prior art references cannot generally be combined absent specific references. Combinations of prior art citations are allowed in the assessment of inventive step, if making such combination would have been obvious on the priority date. Problem solution approach is often applied in assessing the inventive step.

Yes, it is possible to request the contested patent claims to be amended during invalidation proceedings.

According to Section 52 of the Finnish Patents Act, the request must be made before the matter proceeds to a main hearing. The court will then decide whether the amendment is allowed before the proceedings are continued. The counterparty is usually allowed to provide a statement on the admissibility of the amendment. The amendment will be allowed if it is clear, has support from the original application, and does not contain added matter. If the amendment is confirmed, the proceedings will continue based on the amended claims.

This regime is, however, expected to change. Under the forthcoming amendment to the Finnish Patents Act, the court-based limitation procedure under the current Section 52 will be abolished and replaced by a new mechanism for partial invalidation of a patent. Under Section 113(3) of the New Finnish Patents Act, if the grounds for invalidity relate to only part of the patent, the court must, at the patentee’s request, narrow the scope of protection accordingly by amending the patent claims in the manner proposed by the patentee (partial invalidation). Moreover, under said revision, the amended claims must be clear and concise.

The practice to be adopted under revised framework remains to be developed. As to guidance on future practice, the preparatory works of the New Finnish Patents Act highlight that the amended claims must be narrower than the original claims and the remaining part must meet the patentability requirements in light of the grounds for invalidity raised by the claimant. Moreover, the preparatory works note that where alternative sets of claims are proposed, they must narrow the scope of protection logically and progressively. Importantly, the preparatory works highlight the link between the amended claims and the grounds for invalidity raised by the claimant: the preparatory works note that it should not be possible to obtain limitations to the scope of protection that fall outside the scope of the invalidity alleged by the claimant.

Yes, patent term extensions are available for pharmaceutical products under the Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 and for plant protection products under Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 for a maximum of five years through Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPCs”). Protection for pharmaceutical products may also be extended by an additional six (6) months if deemed suitable for children and paediatric studies have been conducted.

SPCs can be challenged by third parties through initiating an invalidity action against either the SPC or the basic patent upon which the SPC has been granted.

In Finland, technical matters are primarily addressed through party-appointed expert witnesses. The Finnish Market Court also has the authority to appoint experts on its own motion.

Expert witnesses are required to submit written expert statements during the written phase of the proceedings. Expert witnesses can also be heard at the main oral hearing, e.g., if requested by a party. During the oral hearing, expert witnesesses may be subject to cross-examination by the opposing party and the judges. The expert witness is bounded by an obligation to speak the truth and to fulfil their expert function to the best of their understanding.

Yes, both document disclosure and court-mandated evidence seizure are possible in Finland.

Document disclosure

In main infringement proceedings (but not in preliminary injunction proceedings), a party may request the disclosure of specific documents that are in the possession of the counterparty. The requesting party must demonstrate that the document is likely to be of evidentiary value and must identify the document with sufficient specificity. The other party may comment and object the request, e.g., on the grounds of trade secret protection. The Finnish Market Court assesses such requests on a case-by-case basis.

Evidence seizure

Evidence may also be secured through an application for a precautionary measure for securing evidence. To succeed, three requirements must be met:

(i) Claim requirement: It must be probable that the applicant has an enforceable right that is currently being, or is at risk of being, infringed.

(ii) Danger requirement: There must be a risk that the evidence will be concealed, destroyed, transferred, or otherwise compromised.

(iii) Balance of convenience: The court will also weigh whether the seizure would cause disproportionate inconvenience to the defendant in comparison to the applicant’s interest in securing the evidence.

Evidence seized is not automatically disclosed to the applicant, but instead a separate court decision is required to permit access.

In Finland, there are no statutory provisions expressly addressed to assist a patentee in determining infringement of a process patent. However, general procedural tools are available to support the patentee in gathering evidence. These include, e.g., the possibility to request seizure of evidence or disclosure of documents related to the allegedly infringing process (see question 13 above). In certain circumstances, the Finnish Market Court may also conduct an on-site inspection at the defendant’s premises.

Finnish procedural law generally places the burden of proof on each party to substantiate the facts on which its claims or defenses are based. However, the burden of proof may shift to the other party in specific situations. This is assessed on a case-by-case basis and is subject to the court’s discretion. Also, if a patent has been granted to a method for manufacturing a new product, reversed burden of proof is applied initially and a product is deemed to have been manufactured by the patented method absent proof of evidence to the contrary.

Yes, there are established mechanisms to protect confidential information in Finnish patent litigation.

As a general rule, court proceedings and trial documents are public in Finland. However, upon request, the Finnish Market Court may order that specific trial documents be kept confidential from the public under certain circumstances, e.g., if they contain trade secrets. These confidentiality orders can be issued either on an interim basis or in connection with the final decision. The duration of such orders is determined on a case-by-case basis, and while they are often limited to a maximum of 25 years, longer periods may be possible in some cases.

Additionally, the Finnish Market Court may restrict the publicity of oral hearings under certain conditions to safeguard confidential content.

Breaches of confidentiality orders may result in criminal liability under Finnish law.

Oppositions can be filed with the patent office (Finnish Patent and Registration Office or the European Patent Office) for nine (9) months post-grant. If an invalidation action has been filed before an opposition has been resolved, the court may at its discretion stay the invalidity proceedings. Whether a stay is granted would depend on the parties’ arguments, such as procedural economy, efficiency, and timing.

In general, the Finnish Market Court has wide discretion to determine the evidentiary value of foreign judgments. The Finnish Market Court tends to be especially interested in decisions from other Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) and other European countries (e.g., Germany, UK, and the Netherlands). Rulings from countries outside of Europe generally have less impact. The practice of the UPC can also be expected to be of interest to the Finnish Market Court.

The Finnish Market Court considers itself competent to hear cases concerning the validity of patents registered in Finland and infringement of those patents in Finland. There is little case law on the competence of the court in more complex scenarios. We are not aware of any anti-suit injunction practice in Finland.

Under Finnish procedural rules, the Finnish Market Court is obligated to enquire the parties whether they woud be willing to settle. Court facilitated mediation is also available but rarely used in patent cases. Private ADR mechanisms, such as private mediations, are at times used in parallel to the litigation proceedings. Patent infringement cases may also be submitted to arbitration.

In addition, the ADR mechanisms provided by Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the UPC may be of interest for parties.

In Finland, patent litigation typically commences by sending a warning letter to the counterparty. Under the ethical rules governing attorneys-at-law, legal proceedings should not be initiated without informing the counterparty of the client’s claims, allowing reasonable time for consideration, and offering an opportunity for amicable settlement, unless there is a justified reason to proceed without prior notice.

Patent infringement and invalidity actions are formally commenced by filing an application for summons with the Finnish Market Court.

There are no statutory limitation periods for seeking injunctive relief to prevent ongoing or future infringement. However, pursuant to Section 58(3) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 135(3) of the New Finnish Patents Act), claims for damages are limited to the five years immediately preceding the initiation of legal proceedings. Further, under Section 52(5) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 112(2) of the New Finnish Patents Act), invalidity actions based on lack of entitlement should be brought within one (1) year after the entitled person gained knowledge of the grant of the patent and of any other circumstances on which the proceedings are founded; however, no more than three (3) years later after the grant of the patent if the patentee acted in good faith.

A patent infringement action in Finland may be brought by the patentee or by a licensee. If the patentee is not a party to the proceedings, the licensee must provide evidence of the patentee having been notified of the action.

Under Section 52(4) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 112(1) of the New Finnish Patents Act), any person who suffers harm due to a patent has standing to bring an invalidity action. In practice, no extensive reasoning or detailed evidence of such harm has usually been required for the action to proceed.

Additionally, under the same provision, a public prosecutor may also bring an invalidity action if deemed necessary for reasons of public interest.

If the invalidity action is based on lack of entitlement, the action may only be brought by a person who asserts to be entitled to the invention, as provided under Section 52(5) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 112(2) of the New Finnish Patents Act).

Yes, interim (preliminary) injunction are available in Finland. These proceedings are typically conducted in writing, without an oral hearing, although the Finnish Supreme Court has acknowledged that oral hearings may be possible in certain cases.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements:

(i) Claim requirement: The applicant must demonstrate a likelihood of infringement and that the patent is granted and valid in Finland. Patents benefit from a strong presumption of validity, although this can be challenged in specific circumstances.

(ii) Danger requirement: There must be an imminent threat of infringement or an infringement has just started. This can be shown through a trigger event such as a sale, offer, marketing activity, or a negative response to a warning letter.

(iii) Balance of convenience: The defendant must not suffer undue inconvenience in comparison with the benefit to be secured by way of the preliminary injunction. It is not necessary to prove irreparable harm to the applicant.

In the Finnish Market Court’s practice, preliminary injunctions have been frequently granted.

An ex parte preliminary injunction may be granted if hearing the defendant beforehand would compromise the purpose of the injunction, for example, in cases of an unexpected product launch within a short timeframe (e.g., one to three weeks). Ex parte injunctions may be issued within a few days to a few weeks, depending on the specifics of the case. Inter partes proceedings typically take around two to four months.

If a preliminary injunction is granted (ex parte or inter partes), the decision has to be served on the defendant in order to take effect and a bond (usually in the form of a bank guarantee) must be deposited with the bailiff.

If a preliminary injunction has been granted and is later found to have been unnecessary, the applicant is liable for the damage caused by the preliminary injunction to the defendant.

In Finland, the following remedies are available in cases of patent infringement:

(i) Injunctions: The court may prohibit the infringer from continuing or repeating the infringing act.

(ii) Discontinuation orders against intermediaries: The court may order intermediaries to cease facilitating the infringing use of the patent.

(iii) Damages: Infringers who have acted intentionally or negligently are liable to pay reasonable compensation for the exploitation of the invention, as well as compensation for any additional damage caused.

(iv) Reasonable compensation: In cases of non-intentional and non-negligent infringement, compensation is limited to what is deemed reasonable.

(v) Seizure and destruction orders: The court may order infringing products to be modified, sequestered for the remaining patent period, destroyed, or transferred to the patent holder against compensation.

(vi) Publication costs: The infringer may be ordered to reimburse the claimant for costs incurred in publishing information about the final judgment.

(vii) Criminal fines: Intentional patent infringement may lead to criminal liability and fines, although criminal proceedings in patent matters are rare.

Injunctions and damages are the most commonly sought and ordered remedies.

In Finland, damages for patent infringement are calculated based on the principle that the patentee is entitled to full compensation for the harm suffered for intentional or negligent patent infringement. If the infringement is only based on slight negligence, the damages may be adjusted. The assessment is evidence-driven and depends on the nature and extent of the actual harm inflicted. If the patent infringement is not intentional or negligent, the patentee is entitled to reasonable remuneration for the exploitation of the invention which typically corresponds to a license fee.

Finnish law does not provide for exemplary or punitive damages in patent matters in civil proceedings. However, in criminal proceedings fines may be ordered.

In Finland, final injunctions may be granted, and are typically granted, when patent infringement has been confirmed and the patentee has requested injunctive relief.

Public interest considerations, proportionality, or similar balancing factors are not commonly addressed in Finnish case law concerning final injunctions. The scope of the injunction usually covers the infringing activity and prohibits its continuation or repetition.

To date, we are not aware of any case law where monetary compensation would have been ordered in lieu of an injunction in a case where the patentee would have requested an injunctive relief.

Yes, declatory relief is available under Finnish patent law.

Pursuant to Section 63(1) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 141(1) of the New Finnish Patents Act), a patent proprietor or licensee may bring an action for a declatory judgment to establish whether they enjoy protection against third parties. This requires that there is uncertainty that may be prejudicial to the claimant.

Additionally, under Section 63(2) of the Finnish Patents Act (Section 141(2) of the New Finnish Patents Act), any person who carries on or intends to carry on a commercial activity may, under the same conditions, bring an action against the patent proprietor to obtain a declaratory judgment to determine whether the patent constitutes an obstacle to such activity.

There is large variation in costs, but at first instance they typically range from about EUR 200,000–2,000,000 per case depending on the complexity of the case and the field of technology. On appellate level, the costs typically range from EUR 50,000–250,000.

As a main rule, the losing party must compensate the successful party for all necessary legal costs and party costs. Sometimes the court may only order a part of the total costs to be compensated based on an objection of the losing party, if the costs are considered exceptionally high or contain items that were considered unnecessary. Securities for costs are not required.

One of the potential growth areas for patent litigation is green technology, as it is an emerging sector in Finland. Industrial applications, various high tech areas, as well as pharmaceutical patent disputes are also likely to remain key areas of patent litigation.

The New Finnish Patents Act (653/2026) will enter into force on 1 June 2027. As with any major legislative update, its implementation and interpretation in practice are likely to give rise to interesting legal questions.

The launch of the UPC marks one of the most significant developments in the international patent system in decades. While the UPC offers an opportunity for greater consistency, efficiency, and predictability in European patent enforcement, it also poses some strategic challenges. Companies are still assessing forum choices, litigation risks, and the long-term balance between the UPC and national courts. The coming years will show how well the new system succeeds in balancing different national legal systems.