SEP Injunctions and FRAND Defences in Greece (2026): Litigation Playbook for Rights‑holders & Implementers

SEP injunctions Greece sit at the intersection of patent enforcement, competition law and cross‑border commercial strategy, and in 2026 they have become one of the most consequential battlegrounds for technology licensors and device manufacturers operating in the Hellenic market. This guide is a practitioner‑led playbook for in‑house counsel, patent owners, licensing teams and external IP litigators who must decide whether to litigate, defend or settle a standard essential patent dispute in Greece. It explains the procedural thresholds Greek courts apply to preliminary and final injunctions, how those courts assess FRAND offers in light of binding EU case law, and the concrete defensive tactics available to implementers.

Read it alongside the latest EU enforcement trends and the evolving Greek IP landscape, because the practical calculus for both sides turns on timing, evidence and proportionality.

SEP basics and the Greek legal framework

A standard essential patent is a patent that protects technology declared essential to an industry standard, for example cellular connectivity, video codecs or wireless networking, such that a product complying with the standard necessarily practises the patent. Because standards bodies typically require members to license essential patents on fair, reasonable and non‑discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the law treats SEPs differently from ordinary patents. Understanding that distinction is the foundation of every strategy involving SEP injunctions Greece.

What is a SEP?

Standard essential patents Greece disputes revolve around two linked questions: is the patent truly essential to the standard, and is the patent valid and infringed. The European Patent Office publishes guidance on patent examination, claim interpretation and the technical assessment of patents, which Greek litigators draw on when framing or rebutting an essentiality case. Essentiality is rarely self‑proving: a declaration to a standards body is a commercial statement, not a judicial finding. For that reason, both sides should expect essentiality and validity to be contested on technical evidence, with claim charts mapping each asserted claim onto the relevant standard clause.

Greek procedural overview for IP injunctions

Patent rights in Greece are administered by the Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI), which handles national patent grants and maintains the register against which validity and ownership are assessed. Injunctive relief, however, is a judicial matter. Greek civil procedure distinguishes between urgent interim measures, provisional protective measures decided quickly on a lower evidential standard, and final relief obtained after a full merits trial. The Areios Pagos, Greece’s Supreme Civil and Criminal Court, sits at the apex of this structure and its jurisprudence shapes how enforcement and procedural rules are applied by the first‑instance and appellate courts. National statutes and any procedural amendments are published in the Government Gazette (Efimerida tis Kyverniseos), the authoritative source for the legislative text governing remedies.

The EU dimension is decisive. In Huawei v ZTE (Case C‑170/13), the Court of Justice of the European Union set out the framework that governs when a SEP holder in a dominant position may seek an injunction without abusing that dominance under EU competition law. Greek courts, as courts of an EU Member State, must apply that framework. It is the single most important legal reference point for any assessment of SEP injunctions Greece, because it conditions the availability of injunctive relief on a structured exchange of obligations between patentee and implementer.

Can SEP holders obtain injunctions in Greece? Preliminary and final relief

The short answer is yes, a SEP holder can obtain an injunction against an implementer in Greece, but the path is conditioned by both ordinary injunction requirements and the FRAND‑specific duties derived from EU law. Greek courts assess injunction requests against familiar criteria: the likelihood of success on the merits (a prima facie valid and infringed patent), the risk of harm that cannot be adequately remedied by damages, and a balance of the parties’ interests that increasingly incorporates proportionality and public‑interest considerations.

For SEPs, the Huawei v ZTE conduct requirements overlay those tests: a patentee that seeks an injunction without first notifying the implementer of the infringement and offering a FRAND licence risks the request being treated as an abuse of a dominant position.

Preliminary injunction procedure and timelines

Preliminary injunctions (interim measures) are the fastest route to relief and often the real pressure point in SEP litigation Greece. They are decided in expedited proceedings where the applicant must show urgency and a prima facie case rather than prove the claim to the standard of a full trial. The typical sequence is as follows:

1. Pre‑action notice. Before filing, the SEP holder should notify the implementer of the infringement, identifying the patent and the manner of infringement, consistent with the Huawei v ZTE framework.
2. Application for interim measures. File the petition setting out the prima facie case on validity, essentiality and infringement, the urgency, and the prayers for relief.
3. Evidential submission. Lodge claim charts, the patent and any declaration of essentiality, evidence of the defendant’s conduct and, critically, the written FRAND offer and correspondence demonstrating compliance with the patentee’s duties.
4. Hearing. An expedited hearing follows, at which the court weighs likelihood of success, harm and the parties’ respective FRAND conduct.
5. Order. The court may grant a prohibitory order, order security, or refuse relief where the implementer appears to be a willing licensee and the patentee has not met its obligations.

Sample prayers for relief in a preliminary application typically include an order restraining the manufacture, offering, placing on the market or importation of the infringing products, an order for the provision of security, and measures to preserve evidence. Because the evidential burden is lighter than at trial, the quality and completeness of the FRAND documentation often decides whether interim relief is granted. Note that, under Greek procedural law, an interim measures order does not finally determine the merits and may be followed or replaced by substantive proceedings.

Final injunctions and enforcement

Final injunctions follow a full merits determination of validity, essentiality and infringement and, where competition defences are raised, of the parties’ FRAND conduct. A final injunction is more robust than interim relief but takes substantially longer to obtain. Enforcement is a separate stage: once an injunction is granted, the rights‑holder must pursue execution, which may be backed by periodic penalty payments, the seizure of infringing goods and other coercive measures available under Greek procedural law. Where a preliminary injunction is granted, courts may require the applicant to post security to protect the respondent against loss should the measure later prove unjustified. Patentees should plan the enforcement phase from the outset, because an unenforced injunction delivers no commercial value.

Proportionality and public interest

Proportionality is the pivot on which many SEP injunction decisions now turn. Because an injunction against a standard‑compliant product can exclude an entire device category from the market, courts increasingly scrutinise whether exclusion is a proportionate response where the dispute is in truth about the royalty rate. Where the implementer is a willing licensee and only the price is contested, the proportionate remedy may be monetary rather than exclusionary. This is precisely why FRAND conduct permeates the injunction analysis, the stronger the implementer’s demonstration of willingness, the harder it is for the patentee to justify the drastic remedy of an injunction in the context of SEP injunctions Greece.

What is a FRAND offer and how do Greek courts assess FRAND compliance?

FRAND stands for fair, reasonable and non‑discriminatory. A FRAND offer is the patentee’s concrete proposal of licensing terms that satisfies those three limbs. Under the Huawei v ZTE framework that Greek courts apply, the patentee must present a specific, written offer specifying the royalty and the way it is calculated before pressing for an injunction; the implementer must then respond diligently and, if it rejects the offer, make a FRAND counter‑offer. Assessing FRAND defences Greece therefore means scrutinising both the substance of the offer and the sequence of conduct between the parties.

Practical checklist for a FRAND offer

A compliant FRAND offer under Greek practice should, at a minimum, address the following elements in writing:

• Royalty base and rate. Identify the base against which the royalty is calculated (for example per unit or on a defined portion of the product value) and the rate or formula, so the implementer can assess the proposal.
• Calculation methodology. Explain how the royalty was derived, including any reliance on comparable licences or a portfolio‑based valuation.
• Licence scope. Define the patents or portfolio covered, the territory, the field of use and the duration.
• Payment and reporting terms. Set out payment timing, reporting and audit provisions.
• Non‑discrimination. Demonstrate consistency with terms offered to similarly situated licensees to satisfy the non‑discriminatory limb.
• Willingness to license. Make clear the patentee is prepared to grant a licence on FRAND terms rather than merely to extract an injunction.

A worked royalty illustration, for example, a defined rate applied to a stated royalty base, cross‑checked against two or three comparable licences, materially strengthens the credibility of an offer and gives the court a concrete figure to test against the non‑discrimination limb. The absence of any calculation leaves the offer vulnerable to the charge that it is not genuinely FRAND.

Evidence Greek courts look for

FRAND compliance is proved by a documentary trail. Greek courts assessing FRAND licensing Greece disputes will expect to see:

• The sequence of correspondence showing the infringement notice, the written offer, and the implementer’s responses, including any counter‑offer.
• Comparable licence agreements (often redacted) relied upon to justify the rate, as these are among the most persuasive evidence of what is fair and non‑discriminatory.
• Expert reports addressing essentiality, the value of the patented technology and the appropriate royalty methodology.
• Evidence of the implementer’s conduct, whether it engaged diligently, provided security for past use, and refrained from delaying tactics.
• Relevant national and European precedent, with Huawei v ZTE as the controlling authority on the parties’ respective duties.

The practical lesson for both sides is that FRAND outcomes are built long before the hearing, in the licensing correspondence. Rights‑holders should document every step; implementers should respond promptly and keep their own record of willingness.

Defending implementers, procedural and substantive FRAND defences in Greece

For an implementer facing a SEP injunction, defence is both a procedural and a substantive exercise. The overarching aim is to demonstrate that the implementer is a willing licensee while attacking the foundations of the claim and, where appropriate, invoking competition law. Mounting effective FRAND defences Greece requires coordinated action on several fronts at once.

Procedural tactics

Procedurally, the implementer’s priorities are to resist interim relief, preserve the record of its own good conduct and secure disclosure that exposes weaknesses in the patentee’s case. Key tactics include:

• Opposing the preliminary injunction. Challenge urgency and the prima facie case, and emphasise proportionality, that exclusion from the market is disproportionate where only the royalty is in dispute.
• Documenting willingness. File the correspondence demonstrating a timely, diligent response and any FRAND counter‑offer, since willing‑licensee status is the single strongest answer to an injunction request.
• Requesting disclosure. Seek production of the comparable licences the patentee relies on, to test the non‑discrimination claim and expose inconsistent treatment, within the limits of Greek procedural rules on document production.
• Offering security. Where appropriate, provide security or propose an accounting mechanism for past and ongoing use, reinforcing the argument that the patentee’s interests are adequately protected without an injunction.
• Interlocutory relief. Consider applications that preserve the status quo or that bear on enforcement pending determination of validity or essentiality.

Substantive FRAND defences

Substantively, the implementer should attack the claim on the merits and on competition grounds:

• Essentiality challenge. Contest that the asserted claims are genuinely essential to the standard, using claim charts and expert evidence to show the standard can be implemented without practising the patent.
• Validity challenge. Attack the patent’s validity, drawing on EPO claim‑interpretation and validity principles, since an invalid patent cannot support any injunction.
• Insufficient FRAND offer. Argue the patentee’s offer is not genuinely FRAND, for example because it lacks a transparent calculation, imposes discriminatory terms, or over‑claims scope.
• Non‑compliance with Huawei v ZTE duties. Show the patentee failed to give proper notice or to make a specific written offer before seeking an injunction, so that the injunction request is itself an abuse of a dominant position.
• Abuse of dominance / competition defence. Where the patentee holds a dominant position, invoke the EU competition framework to resist exclusionary relief, grounded in the CJEU’s reasoning.
• Counterclaims. Consider counterclaims, including for a declaration of invalidity or non‑essentiality, to shift the litigation onto the implementer’s chosen ground.

The decisive strategic point is that an implementer who both behaves as a willing licensee and credibly challenges essentiality and validity presents the court with every reason to decline exclusionary relief in favour of a monetary outcome.

Evidence, remedies and FRAND valuation in Greece

SEP disputes typically engage a layered set of remedies, and the choice among them shapes the entire litigation. Parties seek injunctions to prevent continued infringement, damages or royalties to compensate for past and ongoing use, and accounting orders to quantify the extent of use. Provisional royalties or security may bridge the gap while the dispute is resolved, allowing the implementer to continue trading while protecting the patentee’s financial position.

Forensic and expert evidence

Expert evidence is central. Technical experts address essentiality and infringement, mapping asserted claims onto the standard and the accused product. Economic experts address valuation, explaining how a FRAND royalty should be derived and testing comparable licences for comparability. Forensic accounting may be required to establish the volume of infringing sales and the appropriate royalty base. Because Greek courts weigh the credibility and independence of experts, parties should instruct recognised specialists and ensure their methodology is transparent and defensible. Lawyers practising in Athens are members of the Athens Bar Association, and the presentation of expert and documentary evidence should reflect applicable procedural expectations.

Calculating a FRAND royalty, approaches and examples

There is no single mandated formula, but the dominant approaches in FRAND valuation are comparable‑licence analysis and a top‑down portfolio method. In a comparable‑licence approach, the court anchors the rate to genuinely comparable agreements, adjusting for differences in scope, volume and timing. In a top‑down approach, the analysis starts from an aggregate royalty burden for the whole standard and apportions a share to the patentee’s portfolio according to its proportion of essential patents. For example, if a portfolio represents a defined share of the essential patents reading on a standard, a top‑down calculation allocates a corresponding fraction of the aggregate reasonable royalty to that portfolio.

Courts may cross‑check the two methods against one another; convergence between them strengthens confidence in the resulting rate. Patent injunctions Greece outcomes frequently hinge on whether the patentee’s claimed rate survives this scrutiny, because a rate that cannot be justified undermines both the injunction request and the damages claim.

Cross‑border and enforcement considerations in the EU context

SEP disputes rarely stay within one jurisdiction. The same standard‑compliant products are sold across the EU, the same portfolios are asserted in multiple forums, and the commercial objective is usually a global licence. Any strategy to enforce SEPs Greece must therefore account for how a Greek decision interacts with parallel proceedings and enforcement elsewhere in the Union.

When Greek decisions are enforced abroad

Within the EU, judgments in civil and commercial matters benefit from a harmonised regime for recognition and enforcement across Member States (the Brussels I Recast Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), which facilitates the cross‑border effect of a Greek judgment. A Greek injunction, however, is territorial in its prohibitory effect, it restrains conduct in Greece, so a patentee seeking Union‑wide relief must coordinate parallel actions or secure a cross‑jurisdictional licence. Conversely, a monetary judgment or costs order obtained in Greece can generally be enforced against assets in other Member States through the recognition framework, which is a material consideration when assessing the value of a Greek action.

Coordination with parallel EU proceedings

Where litigation is pending in several Member States, the risks of inconsistent decisions, forum shopping and anti‑suit manoeuvres are acute. Parties should map the full litigation landscape before filing in Greece, deciding whether a Greek action is best deployed as a pressure point, a cost‑effective venue for a discrete issue, or part of a coordinated multi‑jurisdictional campaign. Because the CJEU framework in Huawei v ZTE binds all Member State courts, the substantive FRAND analysis should be broadly consistent across forums, but procedural speed, remedies and the appetite for injunctions vary. Aligning the Greek strategy with proceedings elsewhere avoids self‑inflicted inconsistency and preserves negotiating leverage.

Tactical checklists for SEP holders and implementers

The following practical checklists distil the strategy into actionable steps for each side in SEP injunctions Greece.

For SEP holders seeking injunctions

• Issue a clear written infringement notice identifying the patent and the manner of infringement before filing.
• Prepare a specific, written FRAND offer with a transparent royalty base, rate and calculation, supported by comparable licences.
• Assemble claim charts and an essentiality analysis for each asserted claim.
• Instruct technical and economic experts early and ensure their methodology is defensible.
• Build the documentary trail of correspondence demonstrating compliance with the Huawei v ZTE duties.
• Plan the enforcement and security‑posting stage before applying for interim relief.
• Coordinate the Greek action with any parallel EU proceedings to avoid inconsistency.

For implementers defending

• Respond promptly and diligently to any infringement notice and offer, documenting willingness to take a FRAND licence.
• Make a FRAND counter‑offer where the patentee’s offer is rejected, and record the reasoning.
• Prepare essentiality and validity challenges with independent expert support.
• Seek disclosure of the comparable licences underpinning the patentee’s rate, within applicable procedural limits.
• Advance the proportionality argument against market exclusion where only the royalty is in dispute.
• Consider offering security or an accounting mechanism to neutralise the harm justification for an injunction.
• Assess competition‑law defences where the patentee holds a dominant position.

Comparative table, Greece, Germany and the UK

The tactical calculus for SEP injunctions Greece becomes clearer when set against two of the most active European SEP forums. The table below highlights practical differences that shape where and how parties litigate.

The practical implication is that Greece offers a comparatively fast interim procedure where proportionality and the quality of FRAND conduct carry significant weight, making it a potentially useful component of a wider European strategy rather than an isolated forum.

Settlement, licensing and mediation options to avoid injunctions

Litigation is a means, not an end; the commercial objective in almost every SEP dispute is a licence. Early, structured negotiation frequently delivers a better outcome than contested proceedings for both sides. Best practice is to open negotiations with a transparent FRAND offer and a genuine willingness to engage, since this both advances settlement and strengthens the party’s position should the matter proceed to court. Mediation clauses and standstill arrangements can create space to negotiate without the threat of imminent interim relief, and an escrow or security mechanism for disputed royalties lets an implementer continue trading while the rate is resolved.

Suggested terms to expedite a FRAND licence include an agreed interim royalty paid into escrow, a short timetable for exchanging offers and counter‑offers, and a binding determination of the rate, by expert or arbitrator, if the parties cannot agree. Where the dispute is genuinely about price rather than willingness, these mechanisms often resolve the matter faster and at lower cost than full litigation.

Conclusion, a decision framework and next steps

SEP injunctions Greece reward preparation, documentation and proportionate strategy. For rights‑holders, the route map is clear: notify, make a transparent written FRAND offer, build the evidential trail, and reserve the injunction for genuinely unwilling licensees while planning enforcement from the outset. For implementers, the defensive playbook is equally clear: respond diligently, counter‑offer where necessary, challenge essentiality and validity, and press the proportionality argument against market exclusion. Across both roles, the Huawei v ZTE framework and the quality of the FRAND correspondence will usually determine the outcome, and every decision in Greece should be aligned with any parallel EU proceedings.

Parties weighing litigation or settlement should take Greece‑specific advice early, because the strongest position in any SEP injunctions Greece dispute is built well before the first hearing. For a broader procedural overview, see the IP Litigation Lawyer, Greece: Practical Checklist (2026), and consider specialist support on defending preliminary injunctions and on FRAND valuation.

This article is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should obtain case‑specific advice from qualified Greek counsel before acting.

Sources

1. Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA)
2. Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI)
3. European Patent Office (EPO)
4. Areios Pagos, Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece
5. Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic (National Printing House)
6. Athens Bar Association