Patent Exhaustion & Parallel Imports in Romania (2026): When Patent Rights End and What to Do

Patent exhaustion Romania is the single doctrine that most often decides whether an imported product is lawful or infringing, and in 2026 it sits at the centre of a growing number of cross-border disputes driven by intra-EU e-commerce and evolving European patent enforcement. Once a patented product has been placed on the European Economic Area (EEA) market by the patentee or with the patentee’s consent, the patent holder can no longer rely on the patent to block further movement of that genuine product within the EEA.

For rights-holders, understanding exactly where that line falls is the difference between a successful seizure and a wasted application; for importers, it is the difference between a legitimate parallel trade and a costly infringement claim. This guide explains the law as Romanian courts and customs apply it, and walks through the practical enforcement pathways available in 2026.

Overview: why patent exhaustion Romania matters in 2026

Parallel imports arise when genuine, non-counterfeit goods protected by an intellectual property right are bought in one market and resold in another without the rights-holder’s direct authorisation for that second sale. The commercial stakes in Romania have risen. Rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce means that goods first sold cheaply in one EU member state routinely reach Romanian consumers through online marketplaces, and intra-EU movement of goods has intensified competition on price for branded and patented products.

At the same time, the arrival and evolving caseload of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has introduced strategic considerations across Europe. It is important to note that Romania signed the UPC Agreement but, as of 2026, had not yet completed ratification, so Romanian national patents and the national parts of European patents remain enforced primarily before the Romanian national courts. Many rights-holders run parallel strategies, combining national enforcement in Romania with customs measures, rather than relying on a single forum. The practical consequence is that national courts and the Romanian customs authority remain central for day-to-day enforcement against parallel imports.

A clear grasp of patent exhaustion Romania, when rights end and what remedies survive, is now essential commercial knowledge for anyone trading patented goods into or across Romania.

What is exhaustion of patent rights? EU and Romanian law

Exhaustion of rights (sometimes called the “first sale” principle) means that the patentee’s right to control distribution of a specific product is spent once that product has been put on the market by the patentee or with their consent. After that first authorised sale, the patentee cannot use the patent to oppose resale, further distribution or import of that particular item within the relevant territory.

The doctrine as applied in Romania flows from European Union law. The Court of Justice of the European Union established the regional exhaustion principle in its early free-movement jurisprudence, most notably in Centrafarm v Sterling Drug (Case 15/74), where the Court held that a patentee cannot rely on national patent rights to prevent the import of a product that the patentee had lawfully marketed in another member state. This reasoning rests on the EU principle of free movement of goods and has been developed through subsequent CJEU case law. The authoritative texts of these rulings are available through the Court’s own case-law portal.

Romania, as an EU member state and part of the EEA framework for free movement, applies this EU exhaustion doctrine. Romanian national patents are administered by the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM), and European patents take effect in Romania upon validation. Romanian courts interpret national patent rights consistently with EU free-movement principles. The practical effect is that where a product has been placed on the EEA market by the right-holder or with consent, the Romanian patent cannot be used to block its circulation within Romania.

Legal tests courts use to find exhaustion

When a Romanian court assesses whether patent exhaustion Romania applies, it typically examines:

• Genuine product. The goods must be the authentic patented product, not a counterfeit or a materially different article.
• First placing on the EU/EEA market. The product must have been put on the market within the EU or EEA, not solely in a non-EEA country.
• Consent of the patentee. The first sale must have been made by the patentee or by someone with the patentee’s consent, for example, an authorised distributor or licensee acting within the scope of their authority.
• No legitimate grounds to oppose further dealing. Exhaustion can be qualified where the product has been altered or its condition changed after the first sale in a way that harms the patentee’s legitimate interests.

The burden of proving first placing on the market with consent generally falls on the party asserting exhaustion, in practice, the importer. This evidentiary point is decisive in many disputes and is examined in detail below.

When can you import patented goods into Romania without a licence? EU exhaustion explained

The central distinction is between regional (EU/EEA) exhaustion and international exhaustion. Within the EEA, exhaustion is regional: once genuine goods are placed on the market anywhere in the EU or EEA by the patentee or with consent, they can move freely into Romania. An importer bringing genuine patented goods into Romania from another EU/EEA member state generally does not need a separate licence, provided those goods were first marketed in the EEA with the right-holder’s consent.

The position is different for goods first sold outside the EEA. The EU does not operate international exhaustion for patents; a product first placed on the market in a non-EEA country is not automatically free to enter Romania. In that situation, importing the patented product into Romania may infringe unless the patentee consented to that import or a specific rule provides otherwise.

Examples, lawful import versus infringing import

• Lawful (likely exhausted). A Romanian trader buys a genuine patented device that the patentee’s authorised distributor first sold in Germany, then resells it in Romania. The goods were placed on the EEA market with consent, so the Romanian patent is exhausted for those units.
• Risky (not exhausted). A trader buys the same device from a seller in a non-EEA country where the patentee marketed it, and imports it into Romania. Because the first sale was outside the EEA, the patentee may be able to oppose the import.
• Infringing (altered product). Genuine goods are first sold in the EEA, but the importer repackages or modifies them in a way that affects the patentee’s legitimate interests. Exhaustion may not shield that conduct.
• Contractual trap. Even where EEA exhaustion applies against the patent, a contractual distribution restriction may expose the reseller to a separate contractual claim, exhaustion of the patent right does not extinguish distinct contractual obligations.

How to act: enforcement options for patent owners in Romania (step-by-step)

Where a rights-holder believes parallel imports infringe a Romanian or validated European patent, a structured response is far more effective than a single reactive measure. The approach below combines evidence preservation, pre-action correspondence, customs measures and court action. The right sequence depends on urgency: where goods are actively crossing the border, customs and interim injunctions take priority; where the trade is established and ongoing, a full infringement action may be the main route.

Emergency checklist, when goods are at or near the border

• Confirm the patent is in force and validly covers the product in Romania.
• Lodge or activate a customs application under the EU customs enforcement regime so the border authority can detain suspect consignments.
• Prepare an interim injunction application in parallel, with evidence of likely infringement and urgency.
• Preserve all evidence of the shipment, seller and supply chain before it disperses.

Step 1, Preserve evidence and map the supply chain

Before any contact with the suspected importer, secure the evidence. Buy sample units (a documented test purchase), photograph packaging, labels and batch numbers, and record where and when the goods were offered. Trace the supply chain as far back as possible, who imported, from which country, under what invoices and transport documents. The origin of the first sale is the pivotal fact in any patent exhaustion Romania dispute, because it determines whether the product entered the EEA market with consent. Allow one to seven days for an initial evidence sweep, but treat tracing as an ongoing exercise.

Step 2, Pre-action notice and offer to license

A clear, proportionate warning letter often resolves matters without litigation and, if ignored, strengthens a later injunction application by demonstrating that the importer was on notice. The letter should identify the patent, describe the infringing conduct, request that the importer cease, and invite an explanation of the goods’ origin. Where commercially sensible, it can include a licensing or settlement offer. A sample framing paragraph:

“We act for the proprietor of Romanian/European patent no. [number]. Our investigations indicate that you are importing and offering for sale in Romania products that fall within the claims of that patent, and we have no record of any authorisation or of any first sale within the EU/EEA with our client’s consent. We invite you, within [period], to confirm in writing that you will cease these acts and to provide full details of the origin and first sale of the goods, failing which our client reserves the right to seek interim and final relief and customs measures without further notice.”

Allow one to three days to prepare and a reasonable period for a response, shortening the window where urgency demands.

Step 3, Apply to customs for action

Where goods are crossing the Romanian border, a customs application under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 lets the authority detain suspected infringing consignments. This is frequently the fastest practical brake on parallel imports and should be filed early rather than treated as a last resort. The procedure is explained in the dedicated customs section below.

Step 4, Commence civil proceedings and apply for an interim injunction

Romanian courts can grant interim (provisional) injunctions to stop infringing acts pending trial where the applicant shows a likelihood of infringement, urgency and that the balance of harm favours relief. Interim applications can move quickly, sometimes within days, but success turns on the quality of evidence and on the proportionality of what is requested. Overbroad requests are a common reason for refusal.

Step 5, Enforcement and monitoring

A favourable judgment must be enforced: seizure or recall of infringing stock, collection of damages and ongoing monitoring to catch fresh consignments. Enforcement is handled through bailiffs, the courts and, where relevant, renewed customs measures. Build monitoring into the strategy, because parallel import channels often reopen through new intermediaries once one route is closed.

Customs procedure for suspected parallel imports in Romania

Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights across the EU operates under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, which Romanian customs applies alongside national implementing rules. The regulation allows a rights-holder to file an application for action asking customs to detain goods suspected of infringing an IP right. Romanian procedural details and national contact points are published by the Romanian customs authority.

How to file

The rights-holder submits an application for action identifying the protected right, describing the genuine product and providing information to help customs recognise suspect goods. On accepting the application, customs can detain consignments that appear to infringe and will notify the rights-holder, who must then confirm whether the goods infringe and whether proceedings will follow.

Timelines at the border

Once goods are detained, the regulation sets short windows for the rights-holder to respond and to initiate proceedings; failure to act within those periods generally leads to release of the goods. Because border detentions are measured in a handful of working days, preparedness matters. Rights-holders should confirm the exact statutory periods set out in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 before relying on any particular timeframe.

Counter-notification by the importer

An importer whose goods are detained may submit a declaration or evidence, for instance, that the goods were first placed on the EEA market with the patentee’s consent and are therefore covered by patent exhaustion Romania. A credible response can lead to release, which is why rights-holders should file customs applications only where they have solid grounds.

Appeals

Decisions by customs can be challenged through the applicable administrative and judicial appeal channels. Because customs detention is a provisional measure, the substantive question of infringement is ultimately resolved in the courts.

All figures are indicative and vary with firm, complexity and whether preliminary measures succeed. Confirm current figures with local counsel before relying on them.

What changes in 2026, market and practical consequences

Several developments shape patent exhaustion Romania practice in 2026. First, intra-EU e-commerce volumes continue to climb, multiplying the number of consignments that may raise exhaustion questions and increasing the value of early, well-prepared customs applications. Second, the Unified Patent Court is now operational for participating states; Romania had not completed ratification as of 2026, so national enforcement before the Romanian courts remains the principal route for patents taking effect in Romania. Rights-holders are expected to continue running parallel strategies, national court actions combined with customs measures, rather than betting on a single venue. Third, customs guidance and administrative practice continue to evolve, so rights-holders should confirm current Romanian filing requirements before lodging an application.

The practical takeaways are straightforward: file customs applications early and keep them current; invest in evidence of first sale and consent, because that evidence decides most exhaustion disputes; and plan enforcement as a coordinated campaign across customs and the courts rather than a one-off measure.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Relying on reseller statements. A seller’s assurance that goods are “EU stock” is not proof of first sale with consent; obtain documentary evidence.
• Weak evidence chain. Gaps in the supply-chain record let importers assert exhaustion unchallenged. Document every link.
• Choosing the wrong forum. Misjudging whether to proceed in the courts, through customs or both wastes time and cost; coordinate the routes.
• Using customs too late. Once goods clear the border they are harder to intercept. File customs applications before consignments arrive.
• Overbroad injunction requests. Disproportionate relief is a frequent reason courts refuse interim applications; tailor the request to the proven infringement.

Practical annexes, templates and checklists

To support implementation, the following practical resources can accompany this guide:

• Customs application checklist, the documents and information customs needs to accept an application for action.
• Sample pre-action warning letter, a template based on the framing paragraph above, for adaptation by counsel.
• Evidence log, a structured record for test purchases, supply-chain documents and first-sale evidence.

Treat all templates as guidance only; adapt them to the specific facts and have them reviewed by Romanian counsel before use.

Conclusion and next steps

Patent exhaustion Romania decides whether imported goods are lawful parallel trade or infringement, and in 2026, with rising e-commerce volumes, getting the analysis right matters more than ever. The decisive facts are consistent: whether the product is genuine, whether it was first placed on the EEA market, and whether that first sale carried the patentee’s consent. Rights-holders who document the supply chain, file customs applications early and coordinate court and border measures put themselves in the strongest position; importers who can prove EEA first sale with consent can defend their trade with confidence. Because outcomes turn on specific facts, procedural deadlines and current customs practice, seek tailored advice from a qualified Romanian patent litigation practitioner before acting.

For a broader overview of enforcement in this jurisdiction, see our Patent Litigation, Romania practice area, or Find a patent litigation lawyer in Romania.

This article is general guidance and not legal advice. Cost figures and timelines are estimates that vary by case. Confirm the current position with qualified Romanian counsel before relying on any point.

Sources

1. Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM)
2. Curia, Court of Justice of the European Union
3. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 on customs enforcement of IP rights
4. Romanian Customs Authority (ANAF)
5. European Patent Office (EPO)
6. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)