Cross-Border Patent Injunctions and the Dutch Courts: The Hague, Kort Geding and the UPC
The Dutch courts, especially The Hague, are long respected for patent expertise and historically granted cross-border relief under the "spider in the web" approach. CJEU rulings in GAT v LuK and Roche v Primus narrowed it; BSH v Electrolux (2025) has since widened cross-border reach again. The fast kort geding offers preliminary relief; the UPC is another route.
Why patent owners look to the Dutch courts
The Netherlands has one of Europe's most experienced patent benches. Patent disputes are concentrated in a specialist division in The Hague, where technically fluent judges hear a steady flow of pharmaceutical, life-sciences and high-technology cases. That concentration matters: a patent owner enforcing across several European markets often wants a court that understands the technology and moves quickly. Before you weigh any of this, it helps to fix one point of scope. There is no Benelux patent. Patents covering the Netherlands run through the national Dutch route or the European route (a European patent granted by the EPO, or a Unitary Patent), so the enforcement questions here sit alongside the wider Benelux patents orientation (national and European routes) and the EU-level picture.
The "spider in the web" history
The Dutch courts earned their cross-border reputation in the 1990s. Under what became known as the "spider in the web" approach, a Dutch court would, in the right circumstances, grant relief reaching beyond the Netherlands, restraining a defendant's infringing conduct in several countries at once where a group of related defendants could be tied back to a coordinating entity based in the Netherlands. For a patent owner facing a multinational infringer, the appeal was obvious: one forum, one injunction, wide effect.
That reach was always more contained than the shorthand suggests, and it did not survive intact. Two Court of Justice of the European Union decisions in 2006 reshaped the landscape. In Roche v Primus the court held that separate infringement claims against different companies in a group, sued in different member states, were not so closely connected that they had to be heard together, which undercut the "spider in the web" consolidation. In GAT v LuK the court held that where the validity of a patent is put in issue, only the courts of the state that granted that patent can rule on validity with effect against the world. That is a carve-out on deciding validity, not a blanket bar on hearing cross-border infringement, but because an alleged infringer will almost always challenge validity, the practical effect was to make cross-border infringement claims for foreign patents harder to run. The precise interaction of validity and infringement jurisdiction is exactly the kind of point to confirm with local counsel, because it has since moved.
What the current reach actually is
The picture is no longer one of steady contraction. In February 2025 the CJEU Grand Chamber decided BSH Hausgerate v Electrolux (C-339/22), which re-expanded cross-border jurisdiction in a way that matters here. A court of the defendant's EU domicile can hear infringement of a European patent even where it has been validated in other states, and a validity defence does not strip that court of jurisdiction over infringement: the court can stay the infringement question rather than decline it. For patents granted in third (non-EU) states, the exclusive-validity rule does not apply in the same way at all. The direction of travel, in other words, has partly reversed toward broader cross-border reach rather than continuing to shrink.
The honest position is still that cross-border relief is fact-sensitive and the case law keeps developing. Later decisions continue to refine when a court can grant provisional cross-border measures, how the validity point bites at the preliminary stage as opposed to a final ruling, and how jurisdiction over non-EU defendants is handled. This is a fast-moving area, and general commentary dates quickly. Treat any confident statement about how far a Dutch cross-border injunction will currently reach, including anything you read here, as a prompt to check the present state of the law with local counsel rather than a settled rule. The broader mechanics of enforcing one right across several countries are set out in the cross-border enforcement guide.
The kort geding: fast preliminary relief
A distinctive Dutch feature is the kort geding, a preliminary relief procedure (summary proceedings) before a single judge. It is prized for speed: a patent owner can obtain a provisional injunction well ahead of any full trial on the merits, which can be decisive commercially, for example ahead of a product launch or a trade fair. The trade-off is that it is provisional and the court applies a lighter, faster assessment rather than a full validity and infringement trial. Timeframes and the precise threshold vary with the facts and with current practice, so confirm the realistic timetable, and any court fees, with the Dutch courts or local counsel rather than relying on a fixed figure. Official fees apply; confirm the current amount before you file.
The UPC as an alternative route
Since it opened, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has changed the calculus. For European patents that have not been opted out, and for Unitary Patents, the UPC can grant relief spanning the participating member states in a single action, which is a genuine alternative to building a cross-border case through a national court. The Netherlands hosts a UPC local division, so Dutch patent expertise now feeds both the national courts and the UPC. Bear in mind that both routes are shaped by the same 2025 case law, so the contrast between "national court" and "UPC" is not a clean divide on cross-border reach: BSH v Electrolux also bears on how far the UPC's own orders can extend, including toward non-EU territory. Which forum fits depends on the patent, whether it has been opted out, the countries that matter to you and your commercial timetable. This is exactly the kind of choice to model with a specialist before filing.
Getting it right for your situation
IPEnvoy is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice; this is general information. Confirm the current position with the Dutch courts and a qualified local IP professional, remembering that patents covering the Netherlands run through national or European routes rather than any Benelux patent. Cross-border patent enforcement is one of the most strategically loaded decisions a rights holder makes, and the Dutch and UPC options each carry their own risks and timing. If you would like an introduction, IPEnvoy can connect you with vetted Dutch IP counsel who handle patent litigation in The Hague and before the UPC, so you can pressure-test the route before you commit.