The Supreme Court’s Judgment Clarifies the Limitation Period for Damages Claims Arising from Preliminary Injunctions

On 10 October 2025, the Finnish Supreme Court issued its judgment in case KKO:2025:88. The judgment addresses the limitation period for bringing an action for damages resulting from an unfounded preliminary injunction and clarifies that the pendency of the main proceedings has no effect on when the limitation period begins to run.

A preliminary injunction is a powerful legal tool, as it forces the alleged infringer to immediately cease the allegedly infringing conduct. Consequently, if a preliminary injunction is later overturned because the court finds that there was no infringement in the first place, the party affected by the preliminary injunction has the right to claim damages for any harm suffered as a result of the preliminary injunction.

The limitation period for bringing such an action for damages is stipulated in Chapter 7, Section 12 (2) of the Code of Judicial Procedure. It provides that any action for damages and expenses arising from preliminary injunction must be brought within one year from the date the preliminary injunction was overturned, or if an appeal concerning the measure is still pending at that time, of the date of the final decision on the issue.

In the present case, A Oy brought an infringement claim and applied for a preliminary injunction against B Oy prohibiting B Oy from offering and importing certain medicinal products covered by a supplementary protection certificate (SPC). The key events can be summarized in a timeline as follows:

A Oy argued that B Oy’s claim must be dismissed on the grounds that B Oy failed to bring the action within the limitation period set out in Chapter 7, Section 12 (2) of the Code of Judicial Procedure. According to A Oy, the limitation period had started to run from 11 April 2019, when the Supreme Court overturned the preliminary injunction ordered against B Oy.

The Supreme Court held that even in situations where the main proceedings have not yet been resolved, an action for damages arising from an unfounded preliminary injunction must be brought within one year from the date when the court's order overturning the preliminary injunction became legally binding and the Enforcement Officer implemented the cancellation.

The Supreme Court sided with the strict interpretation of the limitation period set out in Chapter 7, Section 12 (2) of the Code of Judicial Procedure. It stated that nothing in the wording of the provision supports delaying the commencement of the limitation period until the main proceedings are concluded. Moreover, this interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court’s previous decision (KKO 1998:96) as well as the previous legislation and the preparatory works.

Crucially, the Supreme Court also noted that claims for damages arising from an unfounded preliminary injunction may also be left pending until the case on the merits has been resolved. Any uncertainty regarding the grounds for the claim does not therefore prevent the claim from being brought. Instead, the parties must act within the limitation period specified under the provision in order to preserve their right to seek compensation.

As the preliminary injunction was overturned on 11 April 2019 and B Oy brought its claim only on 11 May 2021, i.e. more than a year after the preliminary injunction was cancelled, the action for damages was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's judgment provides important clarity and legal certainty on the limitation period for bringing claims for damages regarding unfounded preliminary injunctions.

The judgment confirms that the limitation period begins to run from the cancellation of the preliminary injunction, regardless of whether the main proceedings remain pending. Consequently, parties subject to a preliminary injunction must act promptly to preserve their rights to claim damages, even if the dispute on the merits has not yet been finally resolved.

We are happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this judgment.