FINLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Rainer Hilli, Mikael Segercrantz, Johanna Lilja and Johanna Flythström, Roschier
The defendant had argued that this one-year period began to run from the date on which the PI had been revoked by the Supreme Court – the claimant revoked the provisional measure on 11 April 2019 and the Enforcement Office notified the claimant of the revocation of the provisional measure. Krka had brought the action for dam- ages on 11 May 2021, which was thus within the one-year time limit laid down in Chapter 7, Section 12 of the CJP. Krka claimed that the one-year period would start to run as of the date on which the Market Court gave its decision in the main infringement proceedings on 11 March 2021.
The Market Court held that the one-year time limit started to run as of 11 April 2019 when the Supreme Court ordered the revocation of Gile- ad’s provisional measure, and when the Enforce- ment Office cancelled the enforcement of said measure. Therefore, Krka should have brought the action for damages on 11 April 2020 at the latest. However, as the action was only brought on 11 May 2021, the action must be dismissed as time-barred. Krka has appealed the deci- sion, and the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal. A judgment from the Supreme Court is expected in 2025.
143 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook