Norwegian law provides two main types of intellectual property rights for the protection of inventions: patents and trade secrets. Both patent and trade secret rights are based on statutory law, but case law is an important factor in both the interpretation and application of statutory laws.

Patents

Patent matters in Norway are governed by the Norwegian Patents Act and associated regulations. Norway ratified the European Patent Convention (EPC) and became a member of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) on 1 January 2008. The Norwegian Patents Act is substantially aligned and harmonised with the EPC, ensuring that the criteria for patentability and the legal effects of patents correspond to European standards.

Trade Secrets

Protection of trade secrets is regulated in the Norwegian Trade Secrets Act, which implements Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information.

Patents

Patent protection arises through a formal grant procedure, starting with the filing of a patent application with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO). The application normally consists of a completed application form, a short and factual title, a detailed description with any necessary drawings, patent claims defining the scope of protection and a concise abstract. A filing fee must be paid upon submission of the application.

Once filed, the application undergoes formal examination for administrative compliance, followed by a novelty search and a full substantive examination of patentability and drafting requirements. Upon completion of this assessment, NIPO issues an examination report, to which the applicant must respond and potentially amend the application within a set deadline if objections are raised. Failure to respond in a timely manner results in discontinuation of the application. If all requirements are met, the applicant is notified to pay a grant fee. Upon payment, the patent is granted.

Patent application documents are made publicly available upon grant or, at the latest, 18 months after the filing or priority date. In practice, patents are rarely granted within this 18-month period.

European patents granted by the EPO may be validated to take effect in Norway, provided that Norway has been designated as a contracting state in the European patent application. To complete validation, the patent holder must submit the required translations and pay the validation fee within the prescribed deadlines. For patents granted in English, only the claims must be translated into Norwegian. Once validated, the European patent has the same legal effect as a national Norwegian patent.

Trade Secrets

Trade secret protection differs from patent protection in that it does not require any formal registration or grant procedure. Under the Norwegian Trade Secrets Act, protection arises automatically when the information fulfils the statutory requirements of being confidential, having commercial value because it is confidential and being subject to reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality.

Patents

In Norway, the patent grant procedure typically takes around three years from filing to grant on average, although the actual duration varies on a case-by-case basis. Representation by a patent attorney is not mandatory, but it is generally recommended.

The official costs to grant include:

• a filing fee of NOK6,050 for applications with up to ten claims, with a reduced filing fee of NOK1,100 available for natural persons and certain small entities – each additional claim beyond ten incurs a fee of NOK325; and
• a grant fee of NOK1,600, covering up to 14 pages of the patent specification, with an additional fee of NOK330 for each extra page and for each new claim beyond those for which filing fees have been paid.

In addition, where a patent attorney or other professional representative is used, professional fees will apply. Costs related to professional assistance vary depending on the case at hand and the fees of the professional representative, but will normally be in the range NOK40,000–100,000.

Trade Secrets

There is no formal grant procedure and no official fees associated with trade secrets, as this type of protection does not depend on registration. Instead, protection arises automatically when the information meets the statutory criteria of being confidential, having commercial value because it is confidential, and being subject to reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality.

Patents

The standard term of patent protection in Norway is 20 years from the filing date of the application, subject to the timely payment of annual renewal fees, which become payable from the third fee year onwards.

For medicinal products and plant protection products, patent protection may be extended by up to five and a half years for medicinal products and five years for plant protection products through the grant of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), providing additional market exclusivity beyond the standard 20-year patent term. Norway has implemented the SPC Regulation (469/2009) and Regulation (1610/96) in the Norwegian Patents Act.

Trade Secrets

Trade secret protection under the Norwegian Trade Secrets Act is potentially perpetual. It lasts as long as the information remains confidential (and retains commercial value by virtue of its secrecy) and the holder continues to take reasonable measures to preserve its confidentiality.

Rights and Enforcement

A Norwegian patent confers on the patent owner the exclusive right to prevent third parties from manufacturing, offering, marketing or using a patented product for commercial purposes, as well as from using or offering a patented process and from marketing products manufactured by such a process. The protection also covers indirect infringement, meaning the offering or supply of essential means for carrying out the invention to a person who it is known, or ought to be known, intends to use the invention. Purely private, non-commercial use normally falls outside the scope of infringement, whereas use by public or non-profit entities may amount to infringement if it takes place in the course of commercial activities.

For remedies, see 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee.

Exploitation, Transfer and Security Interests

Patents and patent applications can be freely transferred by agreement, inheritance or enforcement in line with general principles of property law, and can be exploited in whole or in part through licensing. As a main rule, a licence is personal to the licensee and cannot be assigned without the consent of the patent owner, since licensing relationships typically rely on trust and place the licensee in a debtor position towards the patentee. Patent rights may also be pledged as part of a floating charge over business assets under Norwegian security law, and specific provisions allow for separate pledging of patents and patent applications, including European patents and SPCs, subject to certain exceptions where the rights are solely intended to be exploited through assignment or licensing.

Obligations: Annual Fees and Maintenance

To maintain a Norwegian patent in force, the patent owner must pay annual renewal fees to NIPO within prescribed due dates. Corresponding renewal obligations apply to European patents that have been validated in Norway, where annual fees are payable to NIPO from the fee year following the EPO’s grant decision. Failure to pay renewal fees causes the patent to lapse.

Public Information on Patents and Linkage to Marketing Authorisations

NIPO offers open search services giving access to published Norwegian patent applications and granted patents, but there is no exhaustive and legally binding public list that identifies all patents relevant to a specific marketed product, such as a medicinal product, or to a given manufacturing process.

Further, Norwegian law does not provide for a formal patent linkage system connecting drug marketing approval with the resolution of patent disputes, or under which the medicines authority must assess or enforce patents in connection with the granting of marketing authorisations.

Where applicable, the protection period can be extended beyond the standard term of 20 years by the issuance of an SPC. SPCs may be granted for medicinal products and plant protection products for up to five years beyond the standard 20-year patent term to compensate for the period lost while obtaining regulatory approval.

For medicinal products, an SPC may be further extended by six months through a paediatric extension. This requires completion of paediatric studies in accordance with an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) and compliance with the conditions laid down in the EU Paediatric Regulation.

These extensions are governed in the European Economic Area (EEA)/EU framework by Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 on SPCs for medicinal products, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and the corresponding SPC regulation for plant protection products, Regulation (1610/96), all of which have been implemented in the Norwegian Patents Act.

Third parties may submit written observations during patent grant proceedings. The observations must be reasoned, typically explaining why the application does not meet the requirements for patentability, for example because of a lack of novelty or inventive step.

Upon receipt, NIPO forwards the observations to the applicant, who is given the opportunity to respond if the protest relates to ownership rights. NIPO takes the observations into account during the ongoing examination of the application, but the submitter does not become a party to the proceedings.

A final refusal by NIPO may be challenged by filing an appeal with the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (Klagenemnda for industrielle rettigheter; KFIR) within two months from the date on which NIPO’s decision was sent. KFIR carries out a full administrative review of the case and may uphold the refusal, overturn it or remit the case to NIPO for continued examination if this is considered appropriate.

Decisions of KFIR may be brought before the ordinary courts by bringing an action before the Oslo District Court within two months from the date on which KFIR’s decision was sent to the parties. The court reviews the legality of the decision on the basis of the facts and evidence that were before KFIR, and may set the decision aside and remit the case for further administrative consideration, but it does not in itself grant patents.

To maintain a patent or a patent application, an annual renewal fee must be paid to NIPO by the due date. Failure to pay the annual fee by this date results in the patent (or application) lapsing, but payment can still be made within a six-month grace period, subject to an additional surcharge. This grace period is absolute, and if the renewal fee and surcharge are not paid within this time, the lapse becomes final.

If the annual fee is not paid within the grace period due to an unintentional oversight, reinstatement is possible. The patent applicant or proprietor must submit a written request for reinstatement to NIPO within two months after the cause of the non-compliance ceased, and no later than one year after the original payment deadline. The outstanding fee, including any surcharge and the reinstatement fee, must be paid within this timeframe. Failure to meet these conditions means that the request is rejected, and the lapse stands.

The patentee may request an administrative limitation of a granted patent by filing a written request with NIPO. Such a request cannot be filed until the nine-month opposition period has expired and any oppositions filed during that period have been finally resolved. During such opposition proceedings, the patentee may request that the patent is upheld with an amended set of claims.

For a limitation to be allowed, the following conditions must be met:

• the amended claims must be clear and concise and have support in the description;
• the patent in its amended form must not contain subject matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed; and
• the amendments must not extend the scope of protection provided by the patent as granted.

Furthermore, the amendments must constitute a genuine limitation of the patent. The Supreme Court of Norway has recently confirmed this understanding (HR-2025-1232-A), holding that it requires a real restriction of the scope of protection and that purely formal amendments of dependent claims alone are not allowed, even though such amendments are accepted under the EPO’s guidelines and first-instance practice.

In revocation proceedings, if the patent as granted is held invalid, the patentee may request to the Court that the patent be upheld as valid in amended form using the limited claims submitted as auxiliary requests.

Judicial Remedies

The owner of a technical intellectual property right, such as a patent or trade secret, may pursue civil proceedings before the ordinary courts to obtain injunctions or preliminary injunctions (PIs) prohibiting further infringement, claim damages or compensation for losses, and to request corrective measures including recall, withdrawal from the market, destruction or surrender of infringing products and materials.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

See 9.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Opposition

Opposition to a granted Norwegian patent may be filed with NIPO within nine months from the grant date by any person, without any requirement to demonstrate legal or commercial interest. NIPO notifies the patentee and sets a deadline for the patentee to comment on the opposition. After the exchange of arguments, NIPO decides whether to maintain, amend or revoke the patent. It is also possible for a third party to initiate court invalidation proceedings in parallel.

Administrative Review

After expiry of the nine-month opposition period, any person may request an administrative review before NIPO in order to have a patent declared invalid, in whole or in part, if certain circumstances are met. Administrative review cannot be requested if opposition proceedings, limitation procedure or court proceedings concerning the patent are pending. Administrative review is available for as long as the patent is in force, and after expiry if the requester can demonstrate a legal interest; for example, because it is accused of having infringed the patent while it was in force.

Invalidation/Revocation Action

Any person may bring an invalidation action against the patentee before the Oslo District Court, which is the mandatory venue for such claims. This applies irrespective of prior oppositions or their outcomes, and no demonstration of concrete legal or commercial interest is required.

Declaration of Non-Infringement

A person who is accused of patent infringement, or who faces a concrete and specific risk of being so accused, may bring an action before the courts for a declaration of non-infringement (negative declaratory judgment). The claimant must demonstrate a sufficient “current interest” in obtaining such a declaratory judgment, meaning a real need to have the legal relationship clarified vis-à-vis the patentee. Purely hypothetical situations will normally not satisfy the requirement of “current interest”.

Compulsory Licence

Third parties may seek a compulsory licence either through court proceedings before the Oslo District Court or, in certain competition-related cases, by petitioning the Norwegian Competition Authority. A general prerequisite is that the applicant has unsuccessfully sought a voluntary licence on reasonable terms and is expected to exploit the invention safely, properly and in compliance with the licence terms. Grounds for granting a compulsory licence include:

• where the applicant’s patent depends on another patented invention, and the former represents a significant technical advance of substantial economic importance relative to the latter;
• exploitation is required for important public interests;
• patent rights are exercised in a manner significantly restricting competition; or
• prior commercial exploitation in Norway for industrial or business purposes before the patent application became public, without knowledge thereof, and special reasons exist.

Trade Secret Considerations

For trade secrets protected under the Norwegian Trade Secrets Act, courts may – rather than issue injunctions – authorise the alleged infringer’s continued use against reasonable compensation to the rights holder and on suitable terms. Permission requires:

• good faith acquisition without negligence;
• disproportionate harm from injunctions or orders; and
• compensation as a reasonable alternative.

Pursuant to Section 63 of the Patents Act, certain actions must be brought before the Oslo District Court, which thus serves as the mandatory first-instance venue for patent matters. This applies to:

• actions concerning the right to an invention for which a patent has been applied;
• actions for judicial review of decisions by the KFIR refusing a patent application, revoking a patent or upholding a first-instance revocation;
• actions concerning requests for patent limitation;
• actions for invalidation or transfer of a patent;
• actions concerning compulsory licences;
• actions concerning requests for administrative review; and
• civil actions concerning patent infringement.

Judgments of the Oslo District Court can be appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal within one month of service. Judgments of the Court of Appeal may in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court will hear the case only if it grants leave to appeal. The deadline for appealing to the Supreme Court is also one month.

NIPO is the specialised administrative authority that examines and grants patents, trade marks and design, and also handles opposition, administrative review and limitation requests. Decisions from NIPO in such matters may be appealed to the KFIR. Decisions from the KFIR can be brought before the ordinary courts.

Disputes regarding employee inventions can be brought before the mediation board for employee inventions. The board mediates in disputes between employee and employer, for example in relation to compensation matters.

The procedure for bringing a patent action is governed by the Norwegian Dispute Act. Before filing a lawsuit, the claimant is required to send the defendant a written notice setting out the claims, and the factual and legal grounds, and inviting the defendant to respond within a reasonable time. There is no formal sanction of inadmissibility if such notice has not been given, and the court cannot dismiss the action on this basis; however, non-compliance may influence the court’s assessment of legal costs.

There is no legal requirement for the parties in an intellectual property matter to be represented by a lawyer. However, given the technical and procedural complexity of such cases, parties almost always choose to engage legal professionals with specialised expertise to ensure that their interests are properly safeguarded and that the proceedings are handled efficiently.

Interim (preliminary) injunctions – both inter partes and ex parte – are available in Norway. While it is possible to request that a PI be granted without the defendant being heard (ex parte), this is seldom granted in patent cases. PI proceedings in patent cases will as a general rule be conducted as inter partes proceedings – either as separate proceedings or as a part of ordinary proceedings on the merits.

To obtain a PI, the petitioner must substantiate the claim and the urgency of the matter. In patent cases, the fact that there is an ongoing infringement (or necessary preparations for such infringement have been made) of the patent normally makes the matter sufficiently urgent and therefore provides sufficient basis for obtaining a PI. The court shall reject a petition for a PI if the loss or inconvenience to the defendant is clearly disproportionate to the interests of the claimant to the interim measure being granted. However, in patent cases, PIs are very rarely rejected on this basis.

In patent infringement cases, the main remedy is normally a prohibition against further use or sales of the infringing goods or process. The court may make the PI conditioned on financial security from the petitioner. If a PI is reversed through appeal or in subsequent main proceedings, the petitioner has a strict liability for damages caused to the other party as a consequence of the injunction.

In interim injunction cases, the potential opponent can protect itself by requesting the court to order the patent owner to provide adequate security or a bond to cover potential damages, legal costs and other expenses if the injunction proves unjustified. There is no formal procedure for filing protective briefs, and the court might disregard such filings, as they are not obliged to process them.

Claims for damages or compensation arising from patent infringement are normally subject to a limitation period of three years, counted from the date on which the party obtained, or reasonably ought to have obtained, necessary knowledge of the damage and the responsible party. The limitation period may be longer under certain circumstances, but will in any case lapse 20 years after the grounds for liability ceased.

Limitation periods are interrupted when the patent owner takes legal steps against an infringer in order to obtain a judgment. According to Section 60 of the Patents Act, the limitation for claims arising from a patent infringement shall not start to run until the patent has been granted.

A patent infringement claim – eg, a claim for injunctive relief – may not in itself be time barred.

Pursuant to the Norwegian Civil Procedural Act, evidence may to a certain extent be obtained and secured both before and during proceedings by judicial examination of parties and witnesses, and by providing access to and inspecting documents, including electronically stored material, and other real evidence.

Pre-Litigation Evidence Preservation

Pursuant to Norwegian law, evidence may to a certain extent be secured outside a lawsuit by judicial examination of parties and witnesses, and by providing access to and inspecting real evidence. Evidence may be secured if it can be significant in a dispute to which the person who presents the petition may become a party, and there is either a clear risk that the evidence will be lost or considerably impaired, or there are other reasons why it is particularly important to obtain access to the evidence before a lawsuit is instigated. A petition to secure evidence shall be submitted to the court before which a lawsuit can be brought.

Disclosure During Proceedings

Norwegian law does not recognise the concept of discovery. However, all persons are obliged to – and, upon request, may be ordered to – produce for use as evidence any objects, including documents, that are in their possession or under their control, and which may be of relevance for a dispute before the courts. The Norwegian Civil Procedural Act also contains provisions that correspond to Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Thus, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an infringement of a patent has been committed, the court may at the request of the patentee rule that the infringing party shall disclose information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods. Such information may also be required, inter alia, from those having contributed to the infringement or having been in possession of the infringing goods.

Confidentiality Measures

The court may order that information that is disclosed/exchanged during the course of patent litigation proceedings be treated as confidential. This means that the parties and their representatives are legally bound to treat the information confidentially. The court may also decide that only a limited and predetermined circle of people representing a party shall have access to the information. The court may also order that the doors shall be closed whenever this information or these documents are being referenced during the oral hearing.

A lawsuit in Norway starts with a writ of summons. Intellectual property cases, including patents, follow the same pleading standards as other civil cases.

The writ must specify the court, parties’ name and addresses, the claim (with a precise statement of the requested judgment), the factual and legal grounds for the claim, an outline of the evidence to be adduced, any basis for jurisdiction if unclear and the claimant’s view on case management. It requires sufficient detail and specificity to enable the defendant to understand the claims, assess their position and prepare a defence, while remaining concise and no more extensive than necessary. No detailed evidence is required at this stage; merely a summary of proofs to be presented later suffices. The writ of summons, reply and other pleadings should remain brief in legal and factual arguments, since all arguments and facts on which the court will rely should be orally presented during the oral hearing.

The court serves the writ on the defendant with a deadline to reply, typically three weeks. Additional pleadings may follow until the preparation ends three weeks before the hearing unless otherwise decided by the court. After completion of the case preparation, two weeks before the start of the oral hearing, the parties are normally requested to present a final written statement setting out their claims, the legal basis for the claims and the applicable rules, and the evidence that will be presented.

Norwegian law permits collective actions through the group action (class action) mechanism in the Dispute Act, which in principle is also available for intellectual property disputes, although it is rarely used in this field. A group action can be brought where several parties’ claims rest on the same or an essentially similar factual and legal basis, the claims can be handled under largely the same procedural rules, a group procedure is considered the best way to deal with the case and a suitable group representative can be appointed.

The owner of an intellectual property right, such as a patent, must not exploit its rights in a manner that constitutes abuse of a dominant position under Section 11 of the Norwegian Competition Act. This provision prohibits a dominant undertaking from unfairly utilising its position in a way that harms competition, such as through exclusionary practices that unduly restrict market access.

Furthermore, bringing an unjustified infringement claim may amount to an act of unfair competition pursuant to Section 25 of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act, potentially remedied by damages in accordance with general principles of tort. The Supreme Court in Rt. 2015 s. 385 held that liability for damages beyond covering the opponent’s legal costs arises only if the lawsuit constitutes misuse of the right to sue, typically when it lacks any realistic chance of success and the plaintiff was aware of this when filing.

An action for infringement may always be brought by the patentee, but other parties may also have legal standing if they met the general Norwegian requirement of having a sufficient “connection to the case” (rettslig interesse), meaning a sufficiently close factual and legal connection to the dispute. The nature of the “connection to the case” varies depending on the legal scope of the case.

In PI proceedings, both the patentee and an exclusive licensee will normally have legal standing. Non-exclusive licensees may have standing depending on their connection to the case; for example, if they conduct all sales in the relevant jurisdiction and the licence agreements grants them the right to enforce the patent against third parties. Entities suffering only economic loss due to the infringement lack standing in PI proceedings, as damages are not awarded in these cases.

In main patent infringement actions, the same parties as in PI proceedings have standing. Entities that have suffered direct economic losses due to the infringement also have legal standing.

Direct Infringement:

Pursuant to Section 3, first paragraph, of the Patents Act, the following acts constitute direct patent infringement if carried out without the patent holder’s consent:

• manufacturing, offering for sale, putting on the market or using a patented product, or importing or being in possession of the product with such intent;
• using or offering to use a patented process, or offering the process for use in Norway knowing, or where it is obvious from the circumstances, that use of the process is prohibited without the consent of the patent proprietor; and
• manufacturing, offering for sale, putting on the market or using a product that is produced by utilisation of a patented process, or importing or possessing the product with such intent.

The patent proprietor can only prohibit others from using the patented product or process for commercial purposes. Strictly private use of a patented product or process for personal use is not prohibited. However, the use does not necessarily have to be for economic purposes to be regarded as use for commercial purposes, meaning that public or non-profit organisations’ or entities’ use may also constitute infringement.

Indirect Infringement

Indirect infringement is governed by Section 3, second paragraph, of the Patents Act, which prohibits offering or supplying any person who is not entitled to exploit the invention in the country with the means for carrying out the invention, provided that:

• the means regard an “essential” element of the invention; and
• the person supplying or offering the means knows, or it is obvious under the circumstances, that the means are suitable and intended for such exploitation.

“Means” are typically materials or parts that enable the recipient to manufacture a patented product or exercise a patented method.

Section 3 makes an exception for staple commodities. The offering for sale or supplying of such commodities will only constitute infringement if the person offering or supplying attempts to induce the recipient to commit patent infringement.

Remedies

See 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee.

Process Patent Infringement

The Norwegian Patents Act, Section 3 sets out rules for process patent infringement, prohibiting unauthorised use or offering of the patented process within Norway. It further covers offering, marketing, using, importing or possessing products directly obtained by that process, if those acts take place in Norway, even where manufacturing occurred abroad.

Burden of Proof Reversal

Under Norwegian Civil Procedural Law, the burden of proof may be reversed under certain circumstances. With respect to infringement of a process patent, the burden of proof is normally reversed if the patent concerns a process for the manufacturing of a new product. Thus, in such cases the burden of proof will at the outset rest with the defendant (the alleged infringer), and it will be up to the defendant to prove the alleged infringing products are manufactured through a process that does not infringe.

Extent of the Protection

Pursuant to Section 39 of the Patents Act, the extent of the protection conferred by a patent is determined by the patent claims. The description may serve as a guide for understanding and interpreting patent claims.

Equivalence

Norwegian patent law provides a doctrine of equivalence. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called Donepezil Decision from 2009, the conditions for protection by equivalence under Norwegian law may be summarised as follows:

• first, the alleged infringing product or process must solve the same problem as the patented invention;
• second, the modifications made must have been obvious to a skilled person; and
• third, the alleged infringing product or process must not belong to the prior art.

With respect to the second condition, it is not sufficient for determining infringement by equivalence that the modifications are obvious to the skilled person (based on the inventive step standard). According to the aforementioned Donepezil Decision, it is an additional requirement that the modifications are so close to the solution in the patent claim that it is fair to characterise the modification as “reasonably identical” to that solution.

Prosecution History

Even though all of the aforementioned conditions are fulfilled, other circumstances may negatively affect the assessment of infringement by equivalence. The prosecution history is the most important example of circumstances that may exclude the finding of infringement by equivalence.

The prosecution history is relevant to both the interpretation of patent claims and the determination of the patent’s scope of protection under Norwegian patent law.

As a general guideline, protection through the application of infringement by equivalence should be denied where the prosecution history gives a third party legitimate reason to assume that the intent was to waive protection for the disputed embodiment. Furthermore, if the applicant expressly waived certain embodiments during prosecution, s/he cannot reasonably claim that these should later be within the scope of protection through infringement by equivalence.

Non-Infringement

In many patent cases, the alleged infringer will contend that differences between the patent claim and the allegedly infringing product/process entail non-infringement.

Invalidity

The defendant will often file a counter claim for invalidation of the patent.

Research Exemption

Experiments and research on the invention itself is exempted from the patent holder’s exclusive right. The exemption does not only pertain to “pure” research but also commercial research and development. Although there are some examples wherein the research exemption was invoked as defence, this is quite uncommon.

Licence

The defence of leave and licence is not expressly dealt with in the Patents Act but is generally accepted as being a valid defence to an infringement claim. The defence can be based on both an express and implied licence between the patent holder and the defendant.

Exhaustion

The exhaustion defence is based on the patentee’s exclusive right being exhausted for products put on the EEA market by the patentee, or which are brought onto the EEA market with the patentee’s consent.

In the main proceedings, the court will – upon request from the parties – appoint two expert lay judges who deliberate alongside the legal judge(s) to decide the case. In PI proceedings, two court-appointed experts assist the PI judge.

In the main proceedings, the court may also appoint an expert, either upon application by a party or on its own initiative, if it determines that such an appointment is necessary to establish a reliable factual basis for the decision. It is, however, more common for the parties to present their own expert witnesses. An expert witness is permitted to attend the hearing and may be allowed to question parties, witnesses and experts. Typically, the expert witness submits a written report to the court but must also orally present the main findings during the hearing and is subject to cross-examination. While expert witnesses are engaged by a party, they have a duty to provide an impartial, honest assessment to the court.

There is no separate procedure for construing the terms of the patent’s claims; rather, claim construction forms an integral part of the main proceedings.

The court may in certain circumstances receive written submissions from third parties, broadly corresponding to amicus briefs. Such third parties do not acquire the status of a party or an intervener and cannot submit formal claims. They may, however, provide factual and legal information, advance arguments, and express views on the potential outcome of the case.

Submissions may be made by organisations, associations or foundations acting within the scope of their objectives, or by public bodies within their area of responsibility. The submission must serve to clarify matters of general public interest rather than promote the position of either party. It is filed in writing as part of the procedural record, with no right of oral presentation in court, and forms part of the basis for the court’s decision irrespective of whether any party refers to it during the hearing

Pursuant to Section 52 of the Patents Act, anyone may, as a general rule, bring legal proceedings in order to invalidate a granted patent. There is no standing to sue requirement. Grounds for revocation of a patent include:

• the patentability requirements are not fulfilled, including lack of novelty or inventive step, or the invention is excluded from patentability;
• the description does not satisfy the requirement of being so clear that a person skilled in the art can carry out the invention based thereon (insufficient description); and
• the patent covers subject matter not disclosed in the application as filed, or the scope of the patent has been extended after the grant (added matter).

The effect of invalidity is strictly limited to the scope of the invalidity ground. If only part of the patent is affected, the invalidity applies solely to that part. Partial invalidity may be recognised by deleting or combining specific claims. For instance, if the main claim is found to lack an inventive step, it may be revoked, while dependent claims may remain valid in full or in part. Where a patent is found partially invalid, the court may permit the patent to be maintained in a limited form by allowing amendments to the claims, following a request from the patent owner to narrow or adjust the claims accordingly.

A patentee is entitled to seek to amend a patent during litigation. This can be done at any stage of the litigation – ie, also in an appeal case. The patentee can seek to amend the patent by filing one or more auxiliary requests during the court proceedings, or by filing a request for administrative limitation to NIPO.

When the patentee seeks to amend the patent during ongoing legal proceedings, the opposing party in the legal proceedings can submit any invalidity arguments against the amended claims.

Revocation and infringement can be brought as counterclaims within the same proceedings and thus be heard together; this is the normal procedure. For instance, a party defending an infringement action may file a counterclaim for revocation, and similarly, revocation proceedings may include a counterclaim for infringement.

There are no special procedural rules that apply only to intellectual property disputes; patent infringement and validity actions are conducted under the ordinary Norwegian rules on civil procedure. Within that framework, patent cases are run as standard civil lawsuits, but they tend to be more complex and resource intensive than average, often with technically experienced judges and a strong emphasis on expert evidence.

Timeline of Proceedings

For PI proceedings, the overall timeline from filing the petition to a first-instance decision is generally three to five months, while an ex parte PI may be granted within a few days in urgent cases. Appeals in PI matters are normally decided based on the written pleadings, and the Court of Appeal will typically deliver its decision within three to five months. The Court of Appeal’s decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court subject to grant of leave. The Supreme Court will normally deliver its decision within three months of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

In main actions, a first-instance from the District Court is usually delivered 8–14 months after the writ of summons is filed. A Court of Appeal judgment is commonly delivered 10–14 months after the District Court’s judgment, and, if leave is granted, the Supreme Court will often decide whether to hear the case within about three months and then typically deliver its judgment within 9–12 months after the Court of Appeal judgment.

Hearings and Structure

Norwegian civil procedure is built around a single, concentrated main hearing in each instance, where all evidence and arguments are presented orally over a number of days. It is procedurally possible but unusual to split the case into several separate hearings; in practice, patent cases are normally decided after one main hearing at each level, often lasting from five to more than ten days in complex matters.

Witnesses, Experts and Cross-Examination

The court applies the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and there are no special restrictions on admissible evidence in patent litigation. Each party typically engages one or more technical experts who prepare written reports and give oral testimony on the technical issues, both in main actions and PI proceedings. Expert witnesses may attend the entire hearing and present the main content of their written opinions orally, and they are required to be available for cross-examination by counsel and questions from the court.

Fact witnesses, including party representatives, and experts are normally examined during the main hearing after opening submissions and the presentation of documentary evidence. Cross-examination is a standard feature of Norwegian patent litigation, applied to both fact witnesses and experts.

Remedies and Bifurcation

As a main rule, all remedies in patent infringement cases – such as injunctions, recall or destruction, information orders and damages – are decided together in the same judgment after the main hearing. In practice, the courts may defer the detailed calculation of damages to a later phase, but a strict separation of liability issues and remedies is not a typical feature of Norwegian practice.

Norwegian patent cases are decided by the court, which often consists of both professional judges and technically qualified co–judges. There is no jury at any stage of the proceedings.

The District Court

The Oslo District Court has one legal judge. In addition, two technical expert judges are normally called for in patent cases. There is no permanent group or list of expert judges from which the experts are appointed, and the court regularly ask the parties to come up with proposals.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has three legal judges. In addition, two technical expert judges are normally called for in patent cases.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has five legal judges. However, some cases – ie, in cases of particular importance – may be heard in the Grand Chamber by 11 justices or, in exceptional cases, by all of the justices sitting in a plenary session. In the Supreme Court, no expert judges may be appointed, but court-appointed experts may be heard during the oral hearing before the Supreme Court.

Both parties can seek settlement at any stage of the dispute, either directly with the other party or with the assistance of a neutral third party. Settlement is possible both before and after court proceedings have been initiated.

The parties may negotiate and conclude a settlement agreement on a purely private basis, for example through lawyer-to-lawyer correspondence or mediation by an external mediator, and any such agreement can, if desired, be documented as an enforceable settlement.

During the case preparation before the ordinary courts, the judge will normally explore possibilities for full or partial settlement with the parties and may propose court-connected mediation; a settlement reached through such judicial mediation is typically recorded as an enforceable court settlement.

Norwegian courts can co-ordinate related proceedings by joining issues of infringement and validity in one case and, where appropriate, staying one proceeding pending the outcome of another, but they generally do not grant anti-suit injunctions.

In practice, a defendant in a Norwegian patent infringement action will usually raise invalidity as a counterclaim so that both questions are decided together, and if a separate revocation, opposition or foreign validity proceeding is already pending, the Norwegian court may suspend or postpone the infringement case.

Injunctions

To stop an ongoing infringement, the patentee may claim an injunction that prohibits the continuation of the infringement. If it is substantiated that an infringement has occurred, the right-holder is entitled to an injunction prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. Further, injunctions may be granted intended to prevent any imminent infringement.

Damages and Compensation

In cases of intentional or negligent infringement, the patentee is entitled to compensation determined on the most favourable of the following grounds:

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

For patent infringements that have been committed intentionally or through gross negligence, the patent holder is entitled to claim compensation on the basis of a fourth option, that is, compensation corresponding to double the reasonable licence fee for the exploitation. For infringements that have taken place in good faith, the infringer shall, insofar as this is not seen as unreasonable, pay compensation corresponding to a reasonable licence fee for the exploitation or corresponding to the gain procured as a result of the infringement.

Destruction or Recall

The court may also, upon the patentee’s request and to prevent further infringements, decide on remedies such as amendments, seizure or destruction of the infringing goods, provided it is found reasonable to use such measures. This does not apply to a party who has acquired an infringing product in good faith and who has not committed the patent infringement him or herself.

Disclosure of Judgment

Under the Norwegian Dispute Act, Section 14-2, the main rule is that all judgments are to be public. In a judgment in an infringement case, the court may order that information about the judgment be communicated in a suitable manner for the infringer’s account. This also applies to aiding and abetting.

Enforcement of Remedies

Remedies awarded by the court in patent infringement cases are enforced publicly through the enforcement authorities upon request by the entitled party. Monetary claims, such as damages or attorney’s fees, are collected by granting the entitled party a lien against the debtor’s assets. Non-monetary remedies, including injunctions and delivery of items, are executed by the authorities seizing or taking possession of the relevant goods. Enforcement of duties to refrain and to tolerate is effected by the defendant being ordered by the court to provide security for any damage that would be caused if the defendant were to act in breach of the duty in the future.

The party regarded as having won the case in its “entirety” or “in its essentials” is entitled to compensation for legal costs from the losing party. If the prevailing party has not won the case in its entirety or in its essentials, and the losing party has been successful in actions of “significance”, the legal costs can be divided under a different norm of distribution, making the parties liable for the costs related to their unsuccessful actions. In addition, the court may depart from the main rule where “compelling grounds” justify an exception, for example if the losing party had good reason to have the case tried or the successful party has rejected a reasonable settlement offer. Legal costs include “all necessary costs relating to the case”, such as cost for legal counsel, travel and fees to experts.

Across the main intellectual property rights, the civil remedies are largely aligned. Courts may grant interim or final injunctions to stop or prevent infringement, award monetary relief calculated, for example, on the basis of the right-holder’s economic loss, a reasonable royalty or the infringer’s profit, and order measures directed at infringing products and materials, such as modification, withdrawal from the market or destruction.

Unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets is sanctioned under the Trade Secrets Act and general tort principles, and the available remedies largely mirror those in patent cases. The courts may prohibit further use or disclosure, order corrective and preventive measures, allow continued use against appropriate remuneration, and award financial compensation that is typically assessed on the basis of either a reasonable licence fee, the trade secret holder’s economic loss or the gain obtained by the infringer.

A first-instance judgment in main proceedings (finding the patent valid and infringed) will not automatically be enforceable pending appeal, because the appeal prevents the judgment from becoming final, and enforcement would generally require a specific order for provisional enforcement. To obtain effective relief pending appeal, the patentee may instead request a PI in connection with, or following, the first-instance judgment, which can provide an enforceable prohibition while the time limit for appeal runs and for the duration of any appeal proceedings. If a patent is found valid and infringed, this is normally granted and will be enforceable pending appeal.

There are no special appellate rules that apply only to intellectual property cases. Appeals in intellectual property matters follow the ordinary Norwegian civil procedure, and patent and other intellectual property appeals are heard by the regular courts (Court of Appeal and, subject to leave, the Supreme Court) under the same framework as other civil disputes.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal allows a complete reassessment of the case. The parties may advance new legal arguments, and introduce new evidence, expert reports and testimony, and the court may appoint its own experts. The procedure largely mirrors that before the District Court, with an oral main hearing as the standard.

A further appeal to the Supreme Court requires leave, which is granted only if the case raises issues of general importance or there are other particularly weighty reasons. Oral hearings before the Supreme Court are strictly limited to the issues for which leave has been granted and focus on the legal aspects of the dispute rather than on matters of evidence. New or broader claims, as well as new facts or evidence, cannot be introduced before the Supreme Court except in special circumstances, and witnesses are usually not heard directly, although written witness statements or recordings from the lower courts may be used.

Before filing an intellectual property infringement lawsuit in Norway, the main costs typically relate to legal and, where relevant, technical advice. These pre-litigation costs commonly include assessing the merits of the case and available evidence, drafting and sending warning letters, and engaging in settlement negotiations or other correspondence aimed at resolving the dispute without court proceedings.

Court fees in Norwegian civil proceedings are calculated on the basis of a standard court fee, which was NOK1,314 in 2025. For ordinary actions in the District Court, including patent cases, the fee for commencing proceedings is five court fees and covers the first day of the main hearing; if the hearing continues, an additional three court fees are charged per hearing day up to and including day five, and the amount is four court fees per day from day six onwards.

For appeals that are admitted to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the entry fee is 24 court fees and includes the first day of the appeal hearing. If the hearing lasts more than one day, the same daily additions apply as in the District Court (three court fees per day up to and including day five, then four per day), and if the appeal is decided without an oral hearing, only half of the full entry fee is payable.

The party regarded as having won the case in its “entirety” or “in its essentials” is entitled to compensation for legal costs from the losing party. If the winning party has not won the case in its entirety or in its essentials, and the losing party has been successful in actions of “significance”, the legal costs can be divided under a different norm of distribution, making the parties liable for the costs related to their unsuccessful actions. Legal costs include “all necessary costs relating to the case”, such as expenses for legal counsel, travel costs and expert’s fees.

ADR is available for intellectual property cases in Norway but is rarely used in practice, especially for infringement or validity disputes. Neither mediation nor arbitration can resolve claims for patent invalidity or transfer. Such inter partes processes may only address patent validity as a preliminary issue in an infringement context. ADR may however be suitable for licensing disagreements, settlement negotiations or minor commercial intellectual property conflicts, typically through mediation or arbitration where both parties consent.

Under Norwegian law, patents and patent applications may be transferred by contract without any statutory requirement for written form, registration or approval from NIPO for the transfer to be effective between the parties. In practice, assignments are usually set out in a written agreement, and recording the new owner in the patent register is strongly advised, as registration generally follows a “first-to-register” rule and secures legal protection against subsequent competing rights and the transferor’s creditors.

In Norway, an intellectual property right is assigned by the parties entering into an assignment agreement (normally in writing) transferring the right from the assignor to the assignee, and, if they wish to ensure protection against later conflicting rights and transparency towards third parties, by submitting an electronic notice of change of ownership to NIPO.

Under Norwegian law, patent licences are primarily governed by contract, and the Patents Act contains only limited mandatory provisions. As a general rule, the licensee may not assign the licence or grant sub-licences without the patentee’s consent.

In practice, licence agreements are normally concluded in writing, although there is no statutory requirement of written form, registration or approval from NIPO. A patent licence may be recorded in NIPO’s register, and while registration is not mandatory, it is recommended because it strengthens legal protection and helps ensure that the licensee’s right to use the invention is respected by subsequent acquirers of the patent and by the patentee’s creditors. Like other commercial agreements, patent licences must comply with general contract law and Norwegian and EEA competition law.

In practice, licensing an intellectual property right in Norway is largely left to the parties’ agreement and typically involves entering into a written licence contract between licensor and licensee. If desired, the parties may notify NIPO, so that the licence is recorded in NIPO’s register, by submitting a notification identifying the relevant right. No supporting documentation is normally required, and registration mainly serves to provide legal protection in case of later conflicts of rights.