Skip to main content


Decision of the Supreme Court 25 January 2018 – Case No. 1/2011

  1. 1.

    The general State budget for a specific year provides the various authorities of the State with a right to use allocations. It does not impose an obligation to use the allocations which are included in it. Consequently, the State’s failure to implement a program which has been included in the general State budget does not provide a person with an enforceable right to claim the loss of profit, based on an allocation which has not been spent.

  2. 2.

    The installation of systems, that fall within the scope of protection of a patent, has been carried out with the consent of the rightholder, if the rightholder himself was the competent official for the promotion and installation of said systems and never raised any issue of financial claims against the organisation that uses the system.

    1. a.

      The patent holder bears the burden of proving that he has suffered a patent infringement.

    2. b.

      If it is the patent holder who had the whole coordination of the installation of those systems under his supervision and was responsible for the subsidization of private individuals aiming at the installation of those systems, but at the same time has never raised any issue of damages or royalties for the use of the patent, his whole conduct implies that he consented to the use of the patent, without the payment of any fee.

    3. c.

      This implied consent, however, does not extend to the installation of systems after the retirement of the patent holder.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information


Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Translated by Myrto Papadimitraki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chrysostomos A. Kampanellas v. Republic of Cyprus Patents Law of 1988, N.16(l)1998, Arts. 27, 29, 61. “Graywater”. IIC 51, 100–106 (2020).

Download citation


  • Implied license
  • Infringement through continued use
  • Implied consent of use
  • Implied consent of an employee before and after retirement