Patent Litigation 2025 Comparisons

The legal framework in Norway offers two forms of intellectual property rights for the protection of inventions:

• patents; and
• trade secrets.

Both are based on statutory law, but case law is an important factor when interpreting the statutory laws.

Patents

Norway has been a member of the European Patent Convention (EPC) since 2008 but has been obliged to comply with the substantive provisions of the EPC even prior to becoming a member, according to Protocol 28, Article 3, no 4 of the EEA Agreement. Norwegian patent law is therefore harmonised with the EPC, and in line with the rest of Europe. Case law from the European Patent Office (EPO), especially the Boards of Appeal, is considered a highly relevant source of law by the Norwegian courts. Case law from higher courts in other jurisdictions in Europe, such as the Nordics, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, and from US courts is also considered relevant.

Patents are granted for inventions that are new, involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application. “New” means that the invention has not been publicly available prior to the priority date. “Inventive step” means that the invention was not obvious to a person skilled in the art. “Industrial applicability” means that the invention is useful in some practical and technical sense.

Some exceptions to what can be considered a patentable invention are specified in the Norwegian Patents Act, such as plant varieties.

Trade Secrets

Trade secrets are governed by the Norwegian Trade Secrets Act, which incorporates EU Directive 2016/943 into Norwegian legislation. Trade secrets encompass information that is not generally known or readily accessible and that has commercial value due to its confidentiality, and are subject to reasonable steps taken by the owner to maintain its secrecy.

The grant procedure for a Norwegian national patent starts with the filing of a detailed application to the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO). The application must include a comprehensive description of the invention, claims that define the scope of protection sought, and any relevant drawings. Upon payment of the application fee, NIPO conducts a formal examination to ensure compliance with the necessary formalities.

Following this, a substantive examination takes place, where NIPO assesses the invention against criteria such as novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. If deficiencies are identified, the applicant is given an opportunity to respond and make amendments. Successful navigation through this phase leads to the grant of the patent, provided the grant fee is paid.

The patent application is published 18 months after the filing date, and all correspondence between the applicant and NIPO will also be published online after that date.

International applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and European patent applications under the EPC may also be filed to NIPO.

After filing, a PCT application will be examined by an international searching authority. After examination, the applicant may progress the application to the national phase in Norway.

NIPO will send a European patent application to the EPO for formal inspection and examination. If a European patent is granted, such patent may be validated in Norway. Since Norway is not a member of the EU, European patents with a unitary effect will not be valid in Norway unless they are validated here.

In order to keep the filing date of a Norwegian application as the priority date in other jurisdictions, an international application must be filed within 12 months from the filing date in Norway.

A decision from NIPO to deny the application may be appealed to the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (KFIR). A decision from KFIR dismissing the appeal may be brought before the courts, with Oslo District Court being the mandatory first instance venue.

Trade Secret Protection

Trade secret protection does not involve a formal grant procedure. Instead, this right arises when the information in question meets the criteria of being secret, having commercial value due to its secrecy, and being subject to reasonable steps taken by the holder to maintain its confidentiality (Section 2 of the Trade Secrets Act).

Duration of Patent Grant Procedure

The average duration of the patent grant procedure for a Norwegian national patent is three years, according to NIPO statistics. This timeframe includes the initial filing, formal and substantive examinations by NIPO, responses to any official actions, and the final grant of the patent.

Representation for Grant Proceedings

Inventors are not legally required to have representation for grant proceedings, but it is generally recommended and common practice to engage a patent attorney, especially for complex patent applications.

Costs of Patent Grant Procedure

The official fee for filing a national patent application in Norway is NOK6,050 for up to ten patent claims for a company with more than 20 employees. For small businesses and individuals, the fee is NOK1,100. After ten claims, the additional fee for each claim is NOK325 per claim. The fee for notification of grant is NOK1,600, with an additional fee of NOK330 per page for each page in excess of 14.

With the assistance of a patent attorney, the total costs for obtaining a patent in Norway will vary significantly based on several factors, including the complexity of the invention, the number of claims, and whether any objections need to be overcome. The total cost may be estimated to start from around NOK70,000, and will increase according to the specifics of the case.

Timeline for Trade Secrets

There are no official costs or formal grant procedures for trade secrets, as the protection arises automatically when the information meets the necessary criteria. However, there may be costs associated with implementing measures to maintain the confidentiality of the trade secret, such as legal advice on non-disclosure agreements or security measures to prevent unauthorised access to the information.

Patent Term

In Norway, the standard term for a patent is 20 years from the filing date of the patent application. This duration is contingent upon the payment of annual fees to maintain the validity of the patent throughout its term.

Trade Secret Term

Trade secrets do not have a predefined statutory term. The protection for a trade secret continues indefinitely as long as the information remains secret and has commercial value, and reasonable measures are taken to maintain its confidentiality. If a trade secret is disclosed or no longer maintained as confidential, the protection ceases, and the information will fall into the public domain.

Patent Owners' Rights

The right of a patent owner is referred to as a negative right, because a patent gives the owner the right to prevent others from commercially exploiting the invention covered by the patent. It does not give the owner a positive right to exploit the invention, because this may be prevented, for example, by other patents or regulatory requirements.

There are some exemptions to this exclusive right, such as:

• the exploitation of products that have been put on the market in the EEA by the patent holder or with their consent;
• the exploitation by experiments relating to the subject matter of the invention;
• the preparation of a medicine in a pharmacy in accordance with a prescription in individual cases; and
• tests, experiments, etc, on a patented medicine necessary to obtain marketing authorisation in a state party to the WTO treaty (Bolar exemption).

There is also an exemption for anyone who, at the filing date of the patent application, was exploiting, or had made substantial preparations for commercial exploitation of, the invention commercially in Norway (prior use right).

Injunctions and Damages

Patent owners have the right to seek an injunction to prevent or stop others from using their patented invention without their consent. The patent owner may file a request for preliminary injunction awaiting a final judgment.

In the event of infringement, patent owners are also entitled to claim the most favourable of:

• damages to compensate for any loss resulting from the infringement;
• compensation corresponding to a reasonable licence fee, as well as damages for any loss resulting from the infringement that would not have arisen in connection with licensing; or
• compensation corresponding to the gain obtained by the infringer.

In the case of infringement committed intentionally or by gross negligence, the patent owner may claim double a reasonable licence fee.

Exploitation and Licensing

Patent holders have the exclusive right to decide how their invention is commercially exploited, which can include manufacturing or selling. Owners may also grant licences to others, allowing them to use the invention under agreed terms, which can provide a source of revenue.

Transfer, Assigning and Pledge

Patents and patent applications are assets that may be transferred or assigned to others. It is also possible to pledge licences, provided that they are transferable.

Obligations of Patent Owners – Disclosure and Annual Fees

It is a patentability requirement that the invention is disclosed in the patent application in a manner that is sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

To maintain a patent, annual renewal fees must be paid. These fees typically increase over the life of the patent, with the highest fees due towards the end of the 20-year term.

Trade Secret Owner's Rights

A trade secret owner does not have exclusive rights to use the protected information. If a third party independently develops the same information, said third party can use this freely.

A trade secret owner has the right to seek an injunction and/or damages in case of unauthorised acquisition, use and disclosure of the trade secrets. Injunction and damages may also be sought in case of marketing and sale of infringing products – ie, products that have a design, characteristic or function, or that are produced or marketed in a way that significantly benefits from a trade secret that has been unlawfully acquired, used or disclosed.

Trade Secret Maintenance

For trade secrets, the owner must continuously ensure that the information remains confidential and take reasonable steps to prevent its disclosure.

Public Information on Patents

Information about patent applications (18 months after the filing date) and granted patents, as well as correspondence during the application procedure and oppositions (if any), is publicly accessible online. NIPO maintains a database where such information can be searched.

There are no specific databases listing applicable patents relating to certain products or processes (eg, for pharmaceuticals).

The EU Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) Regulations have been incorporated into Norwegian law through Section 62 a (1) of the Patents Act.

SPCs are available for medicinal products and plant pharmaceutical products, and may grant a supplementary protection period for a product protected by a patent of up to five years.

To be granted an SPC, the product must, at the application date, be protected by a basic patent in force, it must be subject to a valid marketing authorisation that is the first marketing authorisation for the product, and it must not already have been subject to an SPC.

The term of an SPC may be extended by six months if the product has been subject to clinical trials in accordance with a paediatric investigation plan (“paediatric extension”). The total term of an SPC may therefore be five years and six months.

During the grant proceedings, third parties may submit third-party observations arguing that the invention does not meet the patentability criteria, such as novelty or inventive step, or that they are the rightful owner of the invention.

The third party does not become a party to the proceedings, but NIPO shall provide the third-party observation to the applicant for comments and take the objections and comments into account when processing the application.

During the examination process, the applicant may receive official actions from NIPO stating that it intends to refuse the application. The applicant will then have the opportunity to address the reasons for refusal. This can involve providing additional information, making substantive arguments or amending the claims of the application.

If the application is ultimately refused by NIPO, the applicant can file an appeal with KFIR. This specialised body reviews NIPO's decision and has the authority to overturn the refusal if it finds merit in the applicant's case.

Should the decision by KFIR not be in the applicant's favour, the applicant can bring the matter before Oslo District Court, which is the mandatory legal venue for patent cases in Norway.

Decisions from Oslo District Court may be appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Norwegian Supreme Court.

Timely payments of the annual fee must be made in order to maintain the patent. Failure to pay the annual fees will lead to the expiry of the patent. The annual fee may be paid within six months after the due date, upon payment of an additional fee. It is also possible, under certain circumstances, to request an extension of the time limit for payment of the annual fee, provided that this request is provided no later than the date upon which the annual fee falls due for the first time.

In case of loss of rights due to an unintentional failure to pay the annual fees, a patent holder may request the re-establishment of rights. Such request must be filed with NIPO within two months from the removal of the cause of non-compliance, and not later than one year from the due date.

After the grant of a patent, the patent owner may file a claim for amendment of the claims and, if necessary, the description, in order to limit the scope of patent protection (Section 39 a of the Patents Act). Such request must be filed with NIPO, and only after the expiry of the opposition period or, if oppositions have been filed, after final decisions on oppositions.

When receiving a request for limitation, NIPO will consider whether the claims as amended are clear, concise and supported by the description. NIPO will also consider whether the patent as amended includes anything not disclosed in the original application or anything that constitutes an extension of the scope of protection (added matter). If the request is granted, the limitation takes effect from the filing date of the patent application.

Norwegian case law has recently confirmed that limitation of the patent may also be requested after the expiry of the patent term, if such limitation could be relevant for pending litigation concerning claims for compensation based on infringement of the patent.

During revocation proceedings, and if the patent in its original form is found invalid, the patent holder may also request that the patent shall be maintained in accordance with limited claims (auxiliary requests) filed by the patent holder.

In the case of patent or trade secret infringement, the owner may file a claim for injunction and damages or compensation before the courts. Oslo District Court is the compulsory venue for patent cases in Norway, both invalidity and infringement.

The case is initiated by filing a writ with details of the claim and legal grounds, together with the evidence. The owner must demonstrate a genuine factual and legal need for a judgment from the court, normally by being the owner, co-owner or exclusive licensee of the patent or trade secret. Furthermore, it must be likely that the alleged infringer has or is planning to conduct infringing acts, such as placing an infringing product on the market in Norway.

The patent or trade secret holder may also request a preliminary injunction; see 2.7 Interim Injunctions.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers mediation for a settlement through a neutral third party, or arbitration for a binding decision by appointed arbitrators. ADR is less common in cases regarding the infringement of intellectual property rights, but is available if both parties agree.

It is also possible to initiate criminal proceedings for patent or trade secret infringement, especially for wilful infringement or counterfeiting, involving the police and potential prosecution. However, this is not common.

In addition, there is a specific provision for preliminary injunctions, where the court may decide that customs authorities shall withhold goods under their control when the import or export of the goods would constitute an infringement of an intellectual property right.

Third parties in Norway who seek to challenge or mitigate the effects of a technical intellectual property right, such as a patent, have several legal remedies at their disposal.

Post-Grant Opposition

After a patent is granted, there is a nine-month period during which any person may file an opposition with NIPO. The opposition can be based on various grounds, including lack of novelty or inventive step, that the invention is not described sufficiently clearly for the skilled person to exercise it (insufficiency) and that the patent includes something that was not present in the original application as filed (added matter). Opposition can also be based on the patent being granted to the wrong person; such a claim may only be filed by the person claiming to be the rightful owner. Furthermore, it may be argued that the patent is contrary to public order and morality. The outcome of the opposition proceedings may be that the patent is maintained in its original form or revoked, modified or transferred to the correct owner.

Administrative Review

Anyone may file a request with NIPO that a patent shall be declared invalid in full or in part (“administrative review”). A request for administrative review cannot be filed before the expiration of the opposition period, nor while opposition proceedings, patent limitation proceedings or court proceedings are pending. A request for administrative review can only be based on the following grounds:

• the patented subject matter is not regarded as an invention;
• the subject matter is excluded from patentability;
• the invention lacks novelty and/or inventive step;
• the description is not sufficiently clear for a skilled person to carry out the invention (insufficiency);
• the patent concerns biological material that requires deposition, but no deposition has been made; or
• the patent concerns biological material that exists in nature and does not state how such material can be used for industrial purpose.

The request cannot be based on the ground that amendments have been made that extend beyond the scope of the application as filed (added matter). Furthermore, the request cannot be based on the ground that the patent has been granted to the wrong person.

Invalidation/Revocation Action

Anyone who can demonstrate a genuine need to have the claim decided against the defendant may initiate a lawsuit in civil court to invalidate a patent, on the same grounds as for a request for administrative review. In addition, the patent may be claimed invalid on the ground that it contains subject matter that was not disclosed in the application as filed, or that the scope of the patent has been extended after grant or a request for patent limitation.

Legal proceedings may also be initiated based on the ground that the patent has been granted to the wrong person. Such proceedings may only be brought by the person claiming to be entitled to the patent.

A court decision invalidating or modifying the patent will take effect from the filing date of the patent application.

An alleged infringer may also claim invalidity as a defence against an infringement claim. If a defendant wants to claim invalidity as a defence in a main case on infringement, the defendant must file a separate claim for revocation. The infringement and validity will then be assessed in the same case.

Non-Infringement Declaration

In order to “clear the way”, a party may also ask the court for a non-infringement declaration, either together with a revocation action or alone. In order to do so, the claimant must show a genuine need to have the claim decided.

Compulsory Licence

An infringer who has acted in good faith may request the court to grant a compulsory licence when there are extraordinary grounds for doing so. A compulsory licence may be obtained in the following situations.

• If an invention, without any legitimate reason, has not been utilised to a reasonable extent within three years from the grant of the patent, and four years from the filing date, anyone who wishes to work the invention may obtain a compulsory licence.
• If a patent that involves an important technical advance of considerable economic significance is dependent upon a patent owned by someone else, each of the owners may obtain a compulsory licence to use the other invention.

• Anyone may be given a compulsory licence when required by public interests, or when the patent is exploited in a way that significantly limits competition.
• A person who was commercially exploiting the invention or had made substantial preparations for such exploitation in good faith prior to the date of publication of a patent application may obtain a compulsory licence if desirable due to special circumstances.

A compulsory licence may only be granted to someone who has tried to obtain a licence on reasonable terms without success within reasonable time, and who is presumed to be able to exploit the invention in an acceptable manner and in compliance with the licence terms.

In the first instance, Oslo District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property matters, such as invalidity and infringement matters.

Appeals from Oslo District Court are heard by the Borgarting Court of Appeal. The third and final instance is the Norwegian Supreme Court. However, leave to appeal will be required to have the case heard by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will only hear cases of principal importance or where it is deemed necessary to ensure uniform application of the law. Very few patent cases find their way to the Supreme Court.

The process outlined above does not apply in relation to preliminary injunction matters. These cases are heard according to the venue set out in the Norwegian Dispute Act, normally where the defendant lives or, in the case of a business, where the business is registered. The local appeal court handles any appeal. However, if the injunction is filed as part of or subsequent to the filing of a summons to Oslo District Court, the injunction will also be heard by Oslo District Court.

NIPO is responsible for processing patent applications, oppositions, requests for amendment of claims and administrative reviews, while KFIR hears appeals against NIPO's decisions.

A party who lost the case before KFIR may bring the case before Oslo District Court, claiming that KFIR's decision is invalid.

It is a legal requirement that the rights-holder sends a written notice of possible legal action to the alleged infringer, before filing a law suit. This is normally done in the form of a cease-and-desist letter. The notice should include information about the claim and the grounds for the claim, and should invite the alleged infringer to respond within a reasonable deadline. These preliminary steps aim to clarify rights and possibly settle disputes before going to litigation. The court cannot reject the case if a notice has not been sent, but this may have consequences for the court's decision on the reimbursement of legal costs.

There is no legal requirement to have legal representation in intellectual property matters, and it is possible for a party to represent themselves. In practice, however, due to the specialised nature of intellectual property law and the significant implications of IP disputes, most parties opt for legal representation to ensure their interests are adequately protected and advocated for throughout the legal process.

Interim injunctions, including ex parte interim injunctions, are available in Norway.

A preliminary injunction may be granted if the patent/trade secret holder has established probability that the patent has been, or will be, infringed. It must also be established that it is necessary and urgent to provisionally secure the claim. In patent cases, ongoing infringement or an imminent threat of infringement is normally considered sufficient grounds for an injunction to be issued.

In order for an injunction to be granted, the negative consequences of the injunction for the defendant must be proportional to the positive consequences for the claimant; if the loss or inconvenience to the alleged infringer is not proportionate to the interests of the patent or trade secret holder in having the injunction granted, an injunction will not be granted.

If a delay would pose a risk, the court may grant a preliminary injunction ex parte, without an oral hearing. If so, the alleged infringer may request a subsequent oral hearing.

If granted, the injunction will typically prohibit further use or sale of the infringing goods or processes.

As opposed to a main case on infringement, in preliminary injunction cases the alleged infringer may claim invalidity as a defence, without having to file a counterclaim on invalidity. A decision not to grant a preliminary injunction may, therefore, be based on the court's finding that the patent is most likely invalid.

If it is later established that the preliminary injunction was unjustified, the patent/trade secret holder is obliged, under strict liability, to compensate any loss that the alleged infringer has suffered as a result of the injunction. The court may decide that the patent holder must provide a guarantee for this compensation within a fixed time limit as a condition for the injunction to become effective.

In interim injunction cases, the potential opponent can protect itself by requesting the court to impose an obligation on the patent holder to provide a security bond. This bond would serve to cover any potential damages in the event that a granted injunction is later deemed unjustified.

There is no official system for protective briefs in Norway; if such briefs are filed, the courts are not obliged to take them into account.

Proceedings based on the ground that the patent has been granted to the wrong person must be initiated within one year from the date the plaintiff obtained knowledge of the grant of the patent and the other circumstances on which the claim is based. If the patent holder was acting in good faith when the patent was granted or assigned to them, there is an absolute time limit for the initiation of proceedings based on this ground: three years from the grant or transfer of the patent.

In addition – and in accordance with the general rule for monetary claims under Norwegian law – claims for damages and compensation are subject to the general limitation period of three years.

The Norwegian legal system has mechanisms in place for obtaining information and evidence in intellectual property matters, both before and after formal proceedings have commenced.

Before formal proceedings begin, a party can secure evidence outside of court through a judicial examination of witnesses or by gaining access to physical evidence. This is particularly important if there is a risk that the evidence might be lost or that its condition might deteriorate over time. The party seeking to secure evidence must demonstrate a clear risk that the evidence could be lost or significantly weakened, or that there are other compelling reasons to secure it before initiating legal proceedings.

If there is reason to fear that notice to the other party could obstruct the securing of evidence, a decision regarding access to evidence may be made ex parte. If so, a subsequent oral hearing can be requested by the other party.

Once formal proceedings have been initiated, a party may request that the other party discloses evidence (documents, product samples, etc). The Dispute Act obliges all persons to make available as evidence objects that are in their possession or that they can obtain possession of, which includes documents. Insofar as the information is not covered by attorney-client privilege or contains trade secrets and the request is relevant and proportionate, the other party is not in a position to object. It the other party does object, the court may have to get involved and make a decision on whether the information should be disclosed and, if so, set up a specific confidentiality regime to protect sensitive information.

The timing for the submission of evidence is typically set by the court, and all evidence should be presented at least three weeks before the main hearing.

Where there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been an infringement of a patent, the court may rule that the alleged infringer shall disclose information about the origin and distribution networks of the product.

Such information may also be requested from those who have contributed to the alleged infringement or who have been in possession of the infringing goods; it can also be requested from someone who has initiated significant preparatory measures with the intention of committing an act that will constitute an infringement, or who has otherwise acted in such a manner that there is particular reason to fear that the party in question will commit an infringement.

The initial pleading standards for intellectual property proceedings are the same as for other proceedings. The claimant must submit a written document explaining the claim in detail, and substantiate it with evidence and legal arguments. The initial pleading should provide enough detail to allow the defendant to understand the nature of the claim and to prepare their defence adequately.

The level of detail must be sufficient to demonstrate the plausibility and specificity of the claims being made. The initial pleading should outline the relevant facts and how they support the legal arguments, and it should reference any evidence that substantiates the claim, such as documents, witness testimonies or expert reports.

After the initial filing of the summons and the written reply to the summons, both parties may file further pleadings. Generally, parties may submit pleadings with additional arguments and evidence as long as they do so before the deadline for the submission of evidence, which is typically three weeks before the oral hearing. The court may also allow supplementary pleadings if new facts arise or if there are other compelling reasons to introduce additional information after the initial deadline has passed.

Representative or collective actions (such as class actions) are quite rare in Norway and, while possible in principle, are unlikely to be relevant for cases related to intellectual property rights, as individual lawsuits with several claimants/defendants are a better option.

For a collective action to be initiated, a representative must be appointed to act on behalf of the entire group. The court's approval is necessary for the collective action to proceed, and it will consider factors such as the homogeneity of the claims and the practicality of a collective lawsuit. Once established, the outcome of the collective action will apply to all members of the group, subject to any opt-out provisions.

The owner of an intellectual property right must not exercise their rights in a way that violates competition laws, such as by engaging in anti-competitive practices or abusing a dominant market position. In addition, the enforcement of intellectual property rights should not be done in a way that can be considered abusive or in violation of good business practice, such as actions without sufficient legal grounds or without justified reasons.

The necessary parties typically include the patent/trade secret owner and the alleged infringer. However, third parties such as exclusive or non-exclusive licensees may also have standing to file an action for infringement under certain circumstances.

Unless agreed otherwise between the patent holder and the licensee, an exclusive licensee has the right to initiate infringement proceedings. It is not as clear that non-exclusive licensees have the same right, but they most likely do.

Direct Infringement

In Norwegian patent law, the following are regarded as direct infringement if carried out without the consent of the patent holder:

• production, offering for sale, putting on the market or use of a patented product or a product made by a patented process, or importing or possessing the product for such purposes; and
• using or offering to use a process protected by a patent, or offering the process for use in Norway whilst knowing, or it being obvious from the circumstances, that use of the process is prohibited without the consent of the patent holder.

Indirect Infringement

Indirect infringement refers to supplying means for carrying out the invention, typically components or materials, to someone who is not entitled to exploit the invention, provided that:

• such means relate to an essential element of the invention; and
• the person supplying such means knows, or it is obvious from the circumstances, that the means are suitable and intended for such exploitation.

If the means are staple commodities, it will only be indirect infringement if the person supplying the means attempts to induce the recipient to commit direct infringement.

For both direct and indirect infringement, remedies include injunctive relief to stop the infringement, damages or compensation, and the recovery of legal costs. The court may also order preventative measures, such as recall, remove infringing products from channels of commerce, destruction or handing over the infringing products to the patent holder.

Under Norwegian patent law, infringement of a process patent occurs when an unauthorised party uses or offers to use the patented process within Norway.

Please note that if the product resulting from a patented process is imported into Norway, this will constitute infringement, even if the process itself takes place abroad.

In accordance with Section 39 of the Patents Act, the patent claims determine the scope of protection of a patent. This section corresponds to and implements Article 69 of the EPC and the associated Interpretation Protocol. The claims are interpreted in light of the patent description and any accompanying drawings. The prosecution history is also relevant to take into account.

The Norwegian Supreme Court has, in case Rt-2009-1055 (Donepezil), expressly established that the doctrine of equivalents applies in Norwegian patent law. The case concerned a process patent for a method for production of generic donepezil. In this judgment, the Supreme Court considered the following three conditions to be an “appropriate starting point” for assessing whether an equivalent falls within the scope of protection:

• the alleged object of the infringement must solve the same problem as the patented invention;
• the modifications that have been made must have been obvious to a person skilled in the art; and
• the alleged object of the infringement must not be part of known and freely available technical knowledge.

The court elaborated that “the decisive factor must be a concrete assessment of whether the method is sufficiently similar to the process described in the patent claim, such that it can be characterised as substantially identical”.

An alleged infringer may as a defence claim that the patent right is exhausted, or that the alleged infringer has prior use rights.

An alleged infringer may also claim invalidity as a defence. In a main case, this must be done by filing a separate claim for revocation. The infringement and validity will then be assessed in the same case.

A claim for compulsory licence is not a defence against infringement, because a compulsory licence is only needed when the patent is infringed. The alleged infringer's own patent rights will not exclude that there might be infringement of other patents.

Experts may be appointed by the parties or by the court. In patent cases, party-appointed expert witnesses are typically brought in by either side.

The expert witnesses will often produce written reports that are submitted to the court, but this is not mandatory. In addition to a written report, if filed, the expert witnesses will give oral testimonies during the oral hearing. The expert witnesses have an obligation to present their professional opinions and viewpoints to the court, and are subject to both examination and cross-examination during the oral hearing.

In main cases on validity and/or infringement, two expert lay judges will normally be appointed in both the first and the second instance. The expert lay judges will be a part of the panel together with the legal judges; in the first instance together with one legal judge, and in the second instance together with three legal judges.

There are no expert lay judges in preliminary injunction proceedings but there will often be court-appointed, independent experts who will assist the legal judge. The court-appointed experts will not be a part of the panel of judges, but they will hear the evidence and deliver an opinion on the matter in court, often also in writing.

There is no separate, standalone procedure exclusively for construing the terms of a patent's claims. Instead, claim construction is an integral part of the infringement or invalidity proceedings. The court will interpret the claims as part of its decision-making process.

The interpretation of patent claims is based on a normal, objective meaning of the terms, taking into account the patent description as well as the prosecution history, with the aim of determining what a person skilled in the art would understand the claims to mean.

While there is no formal system for submitting amicus curiae briefs akin to that found in some other legal systems, there are mechanisms through which third parties can provide the court with information or opinions that may be relevant to a case.

• Third-party interventions: third parties with a significant legal interest in the outcome of a case can apply to intervene in the proceedings. If granted, they can submit pleadings and participate to a certain extent.
• Observations by interest groups: organisations, especially those representing industry or trade groups, may be allowed to submit observations or position papers on issues of public interest or where they represent the interests of their members.

These contributions are not amicus curiae briefs in the traditional sense but serve a similar purpose in informing the court on matters that extend beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved.

Reasons for the revocation or cancellation of a patent can include:

• lack of novelty – the invention is not new;
• lack of inventive step – the invention is obvious to someone skilled in the art;
• non-patentable subject matter – the invention falls into a category that cannot be patented;
• insufficient disclosure – the patent application does not disclose the invention in a manner that allows a skilled person to execute it; or
• added matter – the patent contains subject matter that was not included in the original application.

Standing to sue is not required for a revocation action. Any third party can challenge the validity of a patent at any time during its term.

Partial revocation or cancellation of a patent is possible in Norway. If the patent is partly invalid it can be maintained in limited form by amending the patent claims in accordance with a request from the patent-holder.

Amendment of a patent is possible during revocation or cancellation proceedings. The patent-holder may request to amend the patent claims to address issues raised in the revocation or cancellation action. Such amendments are typically aimed at narrowing the scope of the claims to avoid the grounds for invalidity, such as lack of novelty or inventive step.

The conditions for allowing amendments during revocation or cancellation proceedings are that:

• the amendments must not broaden the scope of the original claims as granted; and
• the amended claims must be supported by the patent application as filed, meaning they cannot introduce new subject matter.

If a defendant in an infringement case files a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, infringement and revocation or cancellation of a patent may be decided as part of the same case.

The court might also choose to bifurcate the proceedings, dealing with the validity of the patent first, as the outcome could determine whether the infringement case proceeds. However, this is not common in patent cases.

Intellectual property rights proceedings, including patent litigation, do not have any special procedural provisions, except that Oslo District court is the exclusive venue in the first instance.

The procedure is the same as in other civil cases:

• there is one single trial hearing;
• fact witnesses and experts are typically heard during the oral hearing between the opening and closing statements of the parties' lawyers;
• both representatives of the parties, fact witnesses and experts will be cross-examined by the opposing party; and
• remedies (eg, damages) are normally decided together with the patent infringement.

Third parties wanting to invalidate a patent do not have to establish standing.

Cases are heard by one specialised IP judge at Oslo District Court. Two technical expert lay judges are normally appointed. The expert lay judges will be appointed upon proposals (often joint) by the parties and will have a background within the technical field to which the case relates. One (or both) of the expert lay judges may be a patent attorney.

At the Court of Appeal, the panel consists of three legal judges and two technical expert lay judges.

Cases are decided by simple majority, and the legal and technical judges’ votes have equal weight.

There is no jury system in Norwegian patent litigation.

The case may be settled at any point before or during the proceedings, until the judgment is passed down. These negotiations can be conducted directly between the parties or through their legal representative, and can be both formal and informal. The formal institute is court mediation. During the planning meeting, the court may encourage the parties to consider court mediation. In some instances, the courts may demand that the parties go thorough meditation, although this is uncommon in patent litigation.

At a later stage, Norwegian courts will often actively promote settlement and may offer to assist in settlement discussions during the pre-trial phase or even during the trial.

If the parties reach a settlement, they can jointly request the court to dismiss the case, which also regulates the associated costs.

In Norway, parallel legal proceedings can influence ongoing intellectual property cases.

• Parallel proceedings: courts may stay a case if its outcome could be affected by another proceeding, such as an EPO opposition. The decision to stay is discretionary and considers factors like the timing and potential impact of the parallel case.
• Anti-suit injunctions: Norwegian courts typically do not issue or enforce foreign anti-suit injunctions but may consider them in the context of the case.

The influence of other proceedings is assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the court weighing judicial efficiency and fairness to the parties.

The following remedies are available in the event of patent infringement.

• Injunctive relief – to prevent further infringement.
• Damages or compensation – this can include a reasonable licence fee, damages for loss or the financial gain of the infringer. Penalty damages for wilful infringement are not a concept in Norwegian law as they are in some other jurisdictions, like the United States. However, if the infringement is due to wilful misconduct or gross negligence, the infringer may be ordered to pay double the reasonable licence fee.
• Attorneys’ fees – the prevailing party can typically recover reasonable legal costs from the losing party, including attorneys' fees.
• Destruction or recall – the court may order the infringing products to be destroyed or recalled from the market.

The judge has discretion in ordering remedies, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the extent of the infringement and the behaviour of the infringing party.

Enforcement of remedies is through the Norwegian enforcement authorities. If a defendant does not comply with a court-ordered remedy, sanctions can be imposed, which may include fines or, in extremely rare cases, imprisonment for contempt of court. The enforcement authorities may also levy execution or place a lien on the assets of the defendant to secure payment of any awarded amount.

A prevailing defendant in a patent litigation case is typically entitled to be acquitted of the infringement claims, meaning they are not liable for the alleged patent infringement.

Furthermore, the prevailing defendant has a right to reimbursement of their legal costs from the losing party. This is based on the principle that the losing party should cover the necessary and reasonable costs incurred by the winning party during the litigation process. The court assesses what constitutes necessary and reasonable costs, and has the discretion to determine the amount to be reimbursed. If the court finds that the costs claimed by the prevailing defendant are excessive or not essential to the case, it may reduce the amount awarded.

Remedies for infringement of technical intellectual property rights, such as patents, design rights and utility models, typically include injunctive relief, damages and legal cost recovery. The specifics may vary slightly, but the general approach to enforcement and available remedies is consistent across these types of rights.

The patent holder may apply for an injunction that forbids the infringer to act in a way that continues to infringe the patent until the appeal has been decided. If a patent is found valid and infringed, this is normally granted and will be enforceable pending appeal.

The appellate procedure for intellectual property proceedings is the same as for other types of cases.

The scope of the appellate review depends on the level of the court, as follows.

• Court of Appeal (Lagmannsretten): an appeal to this court generally entails a full review of both the facts and the law. This means the appellate court can re-examine evidence, hear witnesses and consider new arguments and evidence that was not presented in the first instance.
• Supreme Court (Høyesterett): if the case reaches the Supreme Court, the appeal may be limited to legal issues or imply a full or partial review of the evidence. New evidence may be provided until the appeal has been accepted. Thereafter, new evidence requires the consent of the court. Witnesses are not heard directly by the Supreme Court, but written statements may be possible. Admission to the Supreme Court requires a leave of appeal, which is granted only if the case involves matters of principal importance beyond the individual case.

Before filing a lawsuit in Norway, costs may arise from legal consultations, drafting and sending warning letters and subsequent correspondence between the parties. These costs typically include attorneys' fees for their services, which will vary depending on the specific facts of the case.

The court fee is a fixed fee that is calculated based on the number of days needed for the oral hearing. In 2025, the fee for a one-day trial at the district court is NOK6,570. The fee for filing an injunction is NOK3,285.

In accordance with the main rule of the Dispute Act, the losing party is required to compensate the winning party for all relevant and reasonable costs related to the case. This includes the court fees, lawyers' costs and costs associated with expert judges and witnesses.

In patent cases, the main rule is usually followed. However, it should be noted that the costs may be split if the defendant is acquitted for infringement, but loses a claim for invalidity against the claimant. Furthermore, while this discretion is not widely used in patent cases, the judge (or judges if the case stands before the court of appeal or the Supreme court) has relatively wide discretion when it comes to awarding costs in civil cases.

Alternative dispute resolution is not common to settle intellectual property cases in Norway, but it is available and can be an effective means of resolving disputes without going to court. ADR methods such as mediation or arbitration may be used for various types of IP disputes, including those related to patents, trade marks and copyrights. Please note that it is not possible to decide inter partes that a patent is invalid.

In accordance with the main rule regarding the assignments of rights under Norwegian law, this may be done freely by the rights-holder. However, the assignment must be in writing and it is recommended to register the assignment with NIPO for patents, to ensure protection against third parties.

The procedure for assigning an intellectual property right, such as a patent, typically involves the following steps.

• Drafting an assignment agreement: the parties involved draft a written agreement detailing the transfer of the intellectual property right from the assignor to the assignee.
• Registration with NIPO: for patents, the assignment should be registered with NIPO to update the official records. NIPO requires a specific form for the registration of the assignment, which must be accompanied by the written assignment agreement.
• Payment of fees: there is no fee for registration of the assignment with NIPO.
• Publication: once the assignment is registered, it is published, making the transfer of rights public information.

In Norway, licensing an intellectual property right typically requires a written agreement to clearly outline the terms, although this is not a legal necessity. It is recommended to register the licence with NIPO for public notice and enforcement, but registration is not mandatory. The licence must comply with contract law and competition law, ensuring it does not contain terms that could be seen as anti-competitive or otherwise invalid. There is no need for NIPO's approval before the licence can take effect between the parties. However, if registered, a notice of the licence must be signed by the parties involved or their agents, and submitted to NIPO using the specific form.

Norwegian law does not prescribe a specific procedure for licensing an intellectual property right. While a written agreement is recommended for clarity and enforceability, and registration of the licence with NIPO is advised for public notice, neither is legally required. The process is largely governed by the mutual agreement of the parties involved.