UKRAINE Law and Practice Contributed by: Yaroslav Ognevyuk, AMBASSADORS
One of the defining features of Ukrainian litigation is the close interplay between infringement and validity. Defendants almost invariably challenge the patent’s validity, often in parallel proceedings, turning infringe- ment cases into multi-layered disputes where techni- cal and procedural strategy are inseparable. Available defences include lack of infringement, prior use, exhaustion of rights, and, in limited cases, com- pulsory licensing arguments. However, the most effec- tive defence in practice is invalidation of the patent itself, particularly in cases involving utility models, which are often vulnerable to substantive scrutiny. From a strategic perspective, patent disputes in Ukraine are not decided solely on the question of infringement. They are resolved at the intersection of claim interpretation, expert analysis, and validity chal- lenges – meaning that enforcement success depends as much on weakening the patent as on proving its infringement. 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies Patent disputes in Ukraine are primarily heard by com- mercial courts, with jurisdiction determined by the parties involved. The procedural framework is well developed, although enforcement timelines remain variable, ranging from several months for interim relief to several years for final resolution, particularly where validity challenges run in parallel. A specialised IP court system is in development, while disputes are currently handled within the commercial court struc- ture. A defining feature of Ukrainian patent litigation is the procedural coupling of infringement and invalida- tion. Defendants routinely initiate separate invalidity actions, often before or alongside infringement claims, transforming enforcement into a two-track process. This dynamic is particularly pronounced in phar- maceutical litigation, where enforcement is almost invariably accompanied by aggressive invalidation strategies, turning disputes into multi-front proceed- ings that test both the legal and technical resilience of the patent. The level of co-ordination required is frequently underestimated by foreign litigants entering the Ukrainian market.
Interim injunctions are available, including ex parte measures in limited circumstances, but courts apply them cautiously. Applicants must demonstrate prima facie infringement, urgency, and a risk of irreparable harm. Securing interim relief is possible but not auto- matic, particularly in technically complex disputes. Available remedies include injunctions, damages, recovery of lost profits, and destruction of infringing objects. Quantifying damages remains challenging, and courts tend to apply conservative assessments unless supported by robust economic and technical evidence. Legal costs may be partially recoverable. In patent litigation in Ukraine, outcomes are driven by control over expert evidence and procedural timing, which ultimately determine the resolution of the dis- pute. The ability to maintain litigation momentum and manage the procedural framework frequently deter- mines the result. 2. Trade Marks 2.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Signs Trade mark protection in Ukraine operates within a formally harmonised framework, combining domestic legislation, international treaties (including the Paris Convention and TRIPS), and ongoing alignment with EU standards. Brand protection, however, is shaped less by formal rules than by the intensity of market- driven conflicts. Trade mark disputes in Ukraine are often driven by overlapping prior rights, frequent bad-faith filings, and parallel import structures, which in turn require rapid and strategically co-ordinated enforcement. A wide range of signs may be protected, including words, logos, shapes, colours, and, in principle, non- traditional marks such as sounds. Registration of non-traditional marks remains limited, with examiners applying a relatively conservative approach to distinc- tiveness and representation. Unregistered trade marks are not recognised as a standalone category of rights. Protection is primar- ily registration-based, although reputation and prior
369 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook