Preliminary injunctions in IP matters: step by step run through five fixed stages: an urgent application backed by evidence of infringement and the risk of harm, the court's ruling on security, notice to the other side unless the urgency justifies bypassing it, the interim decision itself, and enforcement pending the outcome of the main action. Missing a deadline anywhere in that sequence can cost the applicant the remedy.
Who this concerns
Two parties end up looking at this procedure from opposite sides. The first is a rights holder who has just discovered that a competitor is selling a product built on its patent, using its trademark, or copying a design, and cannot wait for the years a full trial would normally take before the harm becomes irreversible. The second is the party served with the application: a company that wakes up to a court order restraining a product launch, a marketing campaign or a supply contract, with very little time to respond.
Both sides share one fact: a preliminary injunction (interimistiskt vitesförbud, an interim prohibition backed by a financial penalty for non-compliance) is decided on incomplete evidence, under time pressure, before either side has had the chance to argue the case in full. That is what makes the step-by-step sequence matter more here than in ordinary litigation, where a missed procedural point can usually be corrected later.
The commercial trigger is rarely abstract. It is a product about to ship, a trade fair just weeks away, a licensing negotiation that collapses when a competitor undercuts the price using the disputed technology. The starting point for either side is usually the intellectual property and UPC practice overview, before the specifics of a given right are addressed.
What the law says
Swedish civil procedure allows a court to order an interim measure before the underlying dispute has been finally decided, on two conditions: the applicant must show probable grounds for the right it is asserting, and it must show that waiting for the ordinary process would cause harm that cannot later be put right. Under Swedish law as it currently stands, this two-part test applies across patents, trademarks, registered designs and copyright, with the same underlying logic even though each right has its own substantive test for infringement.
The Patent and Market Court sits as the first-instance forum for these applications in Sweden, whichever IP right is at stake. For European patents, the position now depends on whether the patent in question has been opted out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. A patent still within the UPC system is addressed through the UPC's own provisional measures track rather than through a Swedish national application, and the two systems are not interchangeable: filing in the wrong one does not get transferred automatically, it gets refused.
A court asked to grant an interim measure can also require the applicant to post security, intended to cover the respondent's loss if the injunction later turns out to have been wrongly granted. The amount is set case by case against the scale of the disruption the order would cause, not read off a fixed schedule.
How it works in practice
Establishing urgency before drafting anything
The urgency requirement is assessed on the applicant's own conduct, not only on the respondent's. A rights holder that knew about the infringement for months and did nothing before applying has undermined its own case: the court will ask why the harm suddenly became unbearable now. The working assumption should be that the clock on urgency starts the day the infringement was discovered, or reasonably should have been.
Assembling evidence that meets the probable-grounds threshold
Probable grounds is a lower bar than the standard applied at trial, but it is not a formality. The applicant needs to show ownership or a licence to the right, a comparison between the protected right and the alleged infringement, and, where relevant, technical or expert material supporting the comparison. Screenshots, product samples, purchase receipts and correspondence with the counterparty typically carry more weight at this stage than lengthy written argument.
Choosing the forum: Patent and Market Court or the Unified Patent Court
The choice is not tactical, it is jurisdictional. A Swedish national IP right always goes to the Patent and Market Court. A European patent within UPC jurisdiction that has not been opted out generally has to go through the UPC's provisional measures procedure. Getting this wrong at the outset means starting again, and starting again after losing the urgency argument is a difficult position to recover from.
Drafting the application and the request for security
The application sets out the right, the alleged infringement, the harm from delay, and the specific order sought: a prohibition on manufacture, sale, import, or a specific act. It typically includes a proposed level of security if the court requires one, since leaving that open invites the court to set a figure the applicant has not budgeted for.
Documents typically required
- Proof of the right: a registration certificate for the patent, trademark or design, or a licence agreement showing standing to sue on someone else's right
- Evidence comparing the protected right with the alleged infringement: product samples, photographs, technical drawings, packaging
- A dated record showing when the infringement was discovered, supporting the urgency argument
- A draft of the specific order sought, worded narrowly enough that the respondent knows exactly what it must stop doing
- A proposal on security, where the court is expected to require one
- Power of attorney for the counsel filing the application
Ex parte versus inter partes: when the other side is heard first
The default expectation is that the respondent gets to respond before a decision is made. A court will only decide without hearing the other side first where notifying the respondent in advance would defeat the purpose of the application, for instance where advance warning would let the respondent destroy evidence or complete the act the order is meant to stop. An ex parte order can be challenged by the respondent immediately once notified, which moves the dispute into a faster inter partes stage rather than closing it.
What the court decides and what it does not decide
The court decides whether, on the material available now, there is probable cause and urgency. It does not decide, and does not purport to decide, whether the underlying claim will ultimately succeed. That distinction matters commercially: winning the preliminary injunction is not winning the case, and losing the underlying action after having held an interim injunction for an extended period can leave the original applicant liable for the respondent's losses during that time.
Serving and enforcing the order
Once granted, the order has to be served on the respondent to take effect against it, and enforcement, through the enforcement authority where the respondent does not comply voluntarily, follows the same route as enforcement of any other court order. Non-compliance with an order backed by a penalty triggers that penalty; it does not automatically trigger a separate contempt process.
What happens if the underlying claim is not filed in time
A preliminary injunction is not a standalone remedy. The applicant is required to bring, or already have brought, the main action on the merits, and a court that grants an interim measure typically sets a deadline for that main action if it has not yet been filed. Missing that deadline exposes the applicant to having the injunction lifted and to liability for the disruption it caused.
Counter-security and cost exposure if the injunction is later lifted
If the respondent successfully has the injunction lifted, or the applicant later loses the underlying case, the respondent can claim against the security posted and, depending on the scale of the disruption, pursue the applicant directly beyond it. This is the single most under-priced risk in the whole procedure: applicants budget for legal costs and rarely for the cost of having stopped a competitor's business on a claim that did not hold up.
What to check before an application goes to court
- Whether the right relied on is registered, and in whose name, in every relevant jurisdiction
- Whether the infringement evidence would survive being tested by the other side within days, not months
- Whether the delay between discovery and filing can be explained without weakening urgency
- Whether the correct forum, Patent and Market Court or the UPC, has been identified for this specific right
- Whether the business can absorb the security amount the court is likely to require
- Whether the main action is ready to be filed alongside, or immediately after, the application
How much evidence is needed to obtain a preliminary injunction in an IP dispute in Sweden?
Enough to show probable grounds, not enough to prove the case at trial. In practice this means clear proof of ownership of the right, a direct side-by-side comparison with the alleged infringement, and documentary evidence, correspondence, samples or receipts, that a court can assess without expert evidence taking weeks to prepare. Material that only becomes convincing after cross-examination is not suited to this stage.
Can a preliminary injunction be granted without notifying the other party first?
Yes, but only where notifying the respondent in advance would defeat the purpose of the application, for example by giving it time to destroy evidence or complete the act the order is meant to prevent. The respondent is entitled to challenge an order made without being heard as soon as it is notified, so an ex parte order is the start of a faster process, not a final word.
What happens if the preliminary injunction is later found to be unfounded?
The respondent can claim against the security the applicant was required to post, and, where the security does not cover the full loss, pursue the applicant directly for the disruption caused while the order was in force. This is why the security amount and the applicant's own exposure need to be assessed before filing, not after the order has already stopped the respondent's business.
The numbers
There is no fixed statutory number of days within which a Swedish court must decide an interim application; the timeline is set by how complete the filing is and by the workload of the specific court on the day it is lodged. A well-documented ex parte application with the security question already addressed moves faster than one that leaves the court to chase missing material.
The security amount follows the same logic: it is fixed against the scale of disruption the order would cause to the respondent, not against a published table, and it can be revised if either side's circumstances change materially while the order is in force. Where a specific deadline or figure genuinely matters to a given application, it is confirmed against the court file for that matter rather than assumed from a general rule.
Where it usually goes wrong
The most common failure is treating the probable-grounds standard as a formality and filing with evidence that would not survive a first challenge; the application is refused, and the refusal itself weakens the position in the main action that follows.
The second is a self-inflicted urgency problem: a rights holder that negotiated with the infringer for months before applying has, in the court's eyes, already shown that the harm was tolerable while negotiations continued.
The third concerns the foreign element. Where the respondent, its assets, or the parent company sit outside Sweden, three things change at once: service of the order takes longer and follows the rules of the country where the respondent is found rather than Swedish domestic service rules; enforcement against assets located abroad depends on whether the order is recognised there at all, which is not automatic outside the UPC contracting states for UPC-based orders; and the practical value of an injunction limited to the Swedish market can be far smaller than the cost of obtaining it if the infringing activity is actually run from, and generates its revenue in, another jurisdiction entirely.
The fourth is assuming ex parte relief is the default route. Courts require a specific justification for deciding without hearing the other side, and an application that asks for ex parte treatment without addressing why notice would defeat the purpose is routinely converted into an inter partes hearing, losing the speed advantage that was the point of applying in the first place.
What to do next
This procedure rewards preparation more than speed of drafting. The point where self-help stops is the evidence review: whether the material actually clears the probable-grounds threshold, and whether the forum choice between the Patent and Market Court and the UPC is right for the specific right at stake, are both judgements that need to be tested against the file before an application is lodged, not after it is refused. A preliminary assessment does exactly that: it goes through the evidence, the forum question and the likely security exposure before anything is filed, so the application that eventually goes to court is the one that survives contact with the other side. Book a preliminary assessment call before drafting starts.
Where the infringement traces back to something developed by one of your own employees rather than by a competitor, the exposure runs differently and is worth checking separately: see the walk-through on employee invention compensation.