Finland's New Patents Act 2026, What Commercial Litigators Need to Know About Injunctions, Fines and Damages

Finland’s reformed Patents Act, which entered into force in 2026, represents the most consequential overhaul of patent litigation Finland has seen in over a decade. The Act codifies explicit court powers to grant injunctions reinforced by conditional fines, modernises the procedural framework for interim relief, and reshapes how patent damages are evidenced and quantified. For in-house counsel managing IP portfolios with Finnish exposure and for litigators advising on commercial IP disputes Finland-wide, the practical implications are immediate: enforcement actions carry sharper teeth, defendants face new coercive risks, and both sides must recalibrate pre-trial strategy.

This guide translates the statute into courtroom tactics, covering when to seek injunctions, how conditional fines operate, what evidence courts now expect for damages, and a step-by-step checklist for filing or defending a patent enforcement action under the new regime.

Background, the Patents Act 2026 at a Glance

The 2026 amendments to Finland’s Patents Act (Patenttilaki) modernise the enforcement toolkit available to patent holders while bringing Finnish law into closer alignment with the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) and emerging Nordic best practice. The reforms address long-standing criticisms that Finnish courts lacked sufficiently explicit statutory authority to attach meaningful coercive sanctions to injunctive orders, and that evidence-gathering mechanisms in patent disputes lagged behind those available in other EU jurisdictions.

The key changes fall into four categories. First, the Act grants courts express statutory power to order prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against patent infringers, removing ambiguity that previously required courts to derive injunctive authority from general procedural law. Second, courts may now attach conditional fines, known in Finnish procedural tradition as uhkasakko, directly to patent injunction orders, creating a per-violation or periodic financial penalty for non-compliance. Third, the Act introduces strengthened provisions on evidence preservation and production, enabling patent holders to seek court orders compelling disclosure of commercial documents relevant to damages quantification.

Fourth, the statute clarifies the framework for calculating damages, endorsing both lost-profits and reasonable-royalty methodologies and requiring courts to consider the infringer’s unfair profits as a relevant factor.

Key Legislative Dates and Effective Provisions

Industry observers expect the transitional provision to generate tactical decisions in the short term: claimants with pending infringement actions may weigh the costs of re-filing against the advantages of accessing the conditional fine mechanism and enhanced evidence orders.

Patent Injunctions Finland, What Courts Can Now Order

Under the reformed Patents Act, Finnish courts possess three distinct injunctive powers in patent disputes. These are prohibitory injunctions (ordering the infringer to cease specific acts), mandatory injunctions (compelling positive action such as product recall or destruction of infringing goods), and interim injunctions (providing emergency relief before trial). Each category now carries an explicit statutory basis in the Patents Act rather than relying solely on general provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

The standard of proof for obtaining a final injunction remains the balance-of-probabilities test applied in Finnish civil litigation. For interim relief, the threshold is lower: the claimant must demonstrate a prima facie case of infringement and show that delay would cause irreparable harm or that the defendant’s continued activity risks rendering a final judgment ineffective. Courts retain discretion to require the claimant to post security covering the defendant’s potential losses if interim relief is later found to have been unwarranted.

Interim Injunctions, Timing, Evidence and Competent Courts

Applications for interim relief in patent infringement matters are heard by the Helsinki District Court, which has exclusive first-instance jurisdiction over patent disputes in Finland. Emergency applications may also be directed to the duty judge outside normal court hours where the urgency is extreme. Based on established Finnish procedural practice, early indications suggest that a straightforward interim injunction application, filed with adequate supporting evidence, can be heard within seven to fourteen days. In cases of genuine emergency, ex parte orders may be obtained within days, though Finnish courts have historically been cautious about granting relief without hearing both parties.

The evidence package for an interim application should include a detailed infringement analysis (claim-by-claim mapping), evidence of the patent’s validity (grant certificate, any opposition history), commercial evidence demonstrating urgency (such as market-share loss data or evidence of the defendant’s accelerating sales), and a statement addressing the balance of hardships.

Conditional Fines, How They Work in Practice

The conditional fine (uhkasakko) is a coercive mechanism deeply rooted in Finnish procedural law. Under the 2026 reforms, courts may attach a conditional fine to any patent injunction, whether interim or final, to incentivise compliance. The fine is not a punitive penalty; it becomes payable only if the enjoined party breaches the injunction order. Courts set the fine amount on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature and scope of the infringement, the defendant’s financial capacity, and the commercial significance of the patented technology.

Conditional fines may be structured as a lump sum payable upon any single breach, a per-violation amount (for example, per unit manufactured or sold in violation of the order), or a daily or weekly accruing fine for continued non-compliance. The claimant must apply for judicial confirmation that a breach has occurred before the fine becomes enforceable, conditional fines are not self-executing. This confirmation procedure typically involves a separate hearing at which the defendant may contest whether the alleged breach falls within the scope of the injunction.

Conditional fines are not automatic. The court retains full discretion over whether to attach a fine, and at what level. A defendant may argue against the imposition of a conditional fine by demonstrating voluntary compliance measures, offering undertakings, or proposing security arrangements that adequately protect the claimant’s interests.

Patent Damages Finland, Proving Loss and Calculating Exposure

The 2026 reforms clarify and codify the damages framework for patent infringement in Finland. Courts are now directed by statute to consider three alternative approaches, individually or in combination, when quantifying compensation.

• Lost profits. The patent holder may recover the profits it would have earned absent the infringement. This requires evidence of the claimant’s own commercial activity, market share, pricing and margins, and a causal link between the infringement and the lost sales.
• Reasonable royalty. Where lost profits are difficult to prove, for instance, where the patent holder does not compete directly with the infringer, the court may award a royalty that a willing licensee would have agreed to pay. Comparable licensing agreements are the primary evidentiary anchor.
• Infringer’s profits. The Act now expressly permits courts to consider the unfair profits earned by the infringer as a factor in the damages assessment. While this is not a standalone damages head identical to an account of profits in common-law systems, it provides an important supplementary measure, particularly where the claimant’s own losses are modest but the infringer has generated substantial revenue.

Finnish procedural law continues to apply a relatively narrow approach to document production compared with common-law discovery. However, the 2026 reforms introduce targeted evidence-preservation and evidence-production orders that allow patent holders to seek court-ordered disclosure of the infringer’s sales records, manufacturing volumes, customer lists and financial statements. These orders are available both before and during proceedings, subject to proportionality and confidentiality safeguards.

Provisional Measures to Preserve Evidence and Assets

Practitioners should act immediately upon discovering potential infringement. The reformed Act empowers courts to order the seizure or detailed description of allegedly infringing products and related documents (an order analogous to the saisie-contrefaçon known in other European jurisdictions). To obtain such an order, the applicant must demonstrate a credible basis for infringement and show that evidence is at risk of destruction or concealment.

A practical evidence-preservation checklist for patent holders includes the following steps:

1. Document the infringing activity through test purchases, screen captures, and technical analysis before the infringer becomes aware of the claim.
2. Instruct forensic accountants to model lost-profits and reasonable-royalty scenarios based on available market data.
3. Prepare a targeted evidence-preservation application identifying the specific categories of documents and physical items sought.
4. Consider whether an ex parte application is justified, courts will expect compelling reasons for proceeding without notice to the defendant.
5. Secure expert witness availability for technical (infringement/validity) and financial (damages quantification) testimony.

Pre-Trial Strategy, When to Seek Injunctions vs Negotiate Licences or Arbitrate

The availability of conditional fines under the new regime raises the stakes for both claimants and defendants, making pre-trial strategic planning more critical than ever in commercial IP disputes Finland practitioners must navigate. The decision whether to pursue injunctive relief, negotiate a licence, or direct the dispute to arbitration should be driven by a structured analysis of several factors.

• Severity and urgency. If the infringement threatens significant and ongoing market-share erosion, interim injunctive relief, reinforced by a conditional fine, offers the fastest route to halting the damage. Where the infringement is narrow or the commercial impact modest, licensing negotiations may yield faster and more cost-effective outcomes.
• Cross-border dimension. Finnish court orders, including conditional fines, are enforceable domestically but require separate recognition and enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions. For infringers operating across multiple EU markets, claimants should evaluate whether parallel proceedings in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), where the patent qualifies, offer a more efficient enforcement pathway.
• Validity risk. Defendants routinely challenge patent validity as a defence to infringement. If the patent is vulnerable to invalidity arguments, the claimant may prefer arbitration (where validity issues can be resolved confidentially) or negotiate a licence before exposing the patent to a public court challenge.
• Cost and proportionality. Injunction proceedings, particularly interim applications supported by detailed technical and commercial evidence, are resource-intensive. In-house teams should model the full litigation budget (including potential adverse cost orders) against the expected commercial benefit.

Courts vs Arbitration, Pros and Cons Post-Act

Finnish courts now offer a significantly enhanced enforcement toolkit, making litigation the natural forum where a claimant needs injunctive relief backed by conditional fines, a remedy unavailable in arbitration. However, arbitration retains distinct advantages: confidentiality (critical for disputes involving trade secrets alongside patents), flexibility in procedural timetabling, party-appointed technical arbitrators, and ease of cross-border enforcement under the New York Convention.

Scenario 1: High-volume manufacturer. A claimant discovers that a competitor is mass-producing a product that infringes a core process patent. Sales are accelerating. The optimal strategy is an urgent interim injunction application at Helsinki District Court, coupled with a conditional fine request, to halt production immediately while the main action proceeds.

Scenario 2: Narrow component patent. A technology company holds a patent covering a specific sensor component used in a complex multi-component product. The commercial impact is limited, and the defendant has indicated willingness to negotiate. Here, a licensing discussion, potentially facilitated by arbitration, may deliver value faster and preserve a commercial relationship that both parties have an interest in maintaining.

Enforcing Patents in Finland, Remedies, Accounts and Post-Verdict Enforcement

Following a finding of infringement, the full range of remedies under the reformed Act includes permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions (with or without conditional fines), monetary damages (calculated under the lost-profits, reasonable-royalty or infringer’s-profits approaches), orders for the destruction or recall of infringing goods, and publication of the judgment at the infringer’s expense. Courts may also order the infringer to provide a detailed account of its infringing activities to facilitate damages quantification.

Enforcement of Finnish court judgments, including conditional fines, is handled through the Finnish Enforcement Authority (ulosottoviranomainen). Once a conditional fine is confirmed by the court as payable, the Enforcement Authority collects it through standard debt-enforcement procedures, including asset seizure if necessary. For cross-border enforcement within the EU, Finnish patent judgments benefit from the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which provides for recognition and enforcement in other Member States without the need for a separate declaration of enforceability.

Defences and Mitigation, Non-Infringement, Invalidity and FRAND

Defendants in patent litigation Finland proceedings retain a robust array of defences. Non-infringement (the defendant’s product or process does not fall within the patent claims as properly construed) remains the most common primary defence. Invalidity challenges, arguing that the patent should not have been granted because the claimed invention lacked novelty or inventive step, may be raised as a counterclaim in the same proceedings or pursued as a separate revocation action before the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH).

For standard-essential patents (SEPs) subject to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments, defendants may invoke the FRAND defence to argue that the patent holder is not entitled to injunctive relief because it has failed to offer a licence on FRAND terms. The likely practical effect of the 2026 reforms in the FRAND context will be to intensify scrutiny of whether the patent holder genuinely exhausted licensing negotiations before seeking an injunction, a factor courts are expected to weigh when exercising their discretion over conditional fines.

Practical Checklist and Sample Timeline for Patent Litigation Finland

The following checklists and sample timeline distil the procedural and strategic requirements discussed above into actionable steps for both claimants and defendants.

Claimant checklist, preparing an injunction application:

1. Confirm patent validity status (grant certificate, any opposition or limitation proceedings, maintenance fee payments).
2. Complete a detailed claim-by-claim infringement analysis with supporting technical expert report.
3. Gather commercial evidence of urgency: market-share data, sales trajectory of infringing product, and evidence of customer diversion.
4. Prepare a balance-of-hardships statement addressing proportionality.
5. Draft a conditional fine request specifying the proposed structure (lump sum, per-violation or periodic) and amount, with justification.
6. Assemble financial evidence for damages: own sales records, margin data, comparable licence agreements, and (where available) estimates of the infringer’s revenues.
7. Prepare an evidence-preservation application if there is a risk of document destruction or asset dissipation.
8. Brief witnesses (technical and financial experts) and confirm availability for a hearing within seven to fourteen days.

Defendant checklist, responding to an injunction application:

• Immediate preservation. Preserve all internal documents relating to the product or process at issue, impose a litigation hold.
• Preliminary invalidity review. Instruct patent attorneys to conduct an expedited prior-art search and prepare a preliminary invalidity opinion.
• Non-infringement analysis. Commission an independent technical analysis of whether the defendant’s product or process falls outside the patent claims.
• Consider offering security or undertakings. Proactively offering to cease disputed activity or post security may persuade the court to decline a conditional fine or limit its amount.
• Challenge proportionality. Prepare arguments on the balance of hardships, demonstrating that an injunction would cause disproportionate harm relative to the claimant’s interest.
• Parallel revocation action. Consider filing a revocation request at PRH to create a basis for arguing that the injunction should be stayed pending a validity determination.

Sample Timeline, Emergency Interim Injunction Application

Conclusion, Adapting Your Patent Litigation Finland Strategy

The 2026 Patents Act fundamentally strengthens the enforcement toolkit available to patent holders in Finland. Conditional fines give injunctions genuine coercive force, enhanced evidence-preservation orders address longstanding procedural gaps, and the codified damages framework provides clearer guidance for quantifying compensation. For defendants, the reforms demand faster and more disciplined responses to enforcement actions, delay and inaction now carry measurable financial penalties.

Whether you are enforcing patents in Finland for the first time or defending against an injunction application under the new regime, early strategic planning is essential. Assemble your technical and financial evidence before filing, model the full range of remedies and exposures, and make a deliberate choice between court proceedings and alternative dispute resolution based on the specific commercial and legal dynamics of your case. To connect with experienced patent litigation Finland practitioners, find Finland IP and litigation lawyers through our directory.

Sources

1. Finlex, Patents Act (official statutory text)
2. PRH, Finnish Patent and Registration Office: Patent Infringement Guidance
3. Borenius, Intellectual Property Practice
4. Chambers, Patent Litigation 2026: Finland Practice Guide
5. Legal 500, Finland: Intellectual Property
6. Hannes Snellman, Intellectual Property Practice