The Higher Regional Court of Vienna confirmed the three-factor Bicalutamid/Schneidmesser Test, holding that a variant is equivalent to an invention for the purposes of infringement if the following conditions apply cumulatively: 1 The modified embodiment solves the problem using modified, but objectively equivalent means (equivalent effect); 2 The person skilled in the art is able…

The Higher Regional Court of Vienna confirmed that the “second medical use” of an already known substance, as required for patent protection, can be that the substance is used for a specific group of patients with specific effects. Case date: 11 May 2017 Case number: 34R113/16m Court: Higher Regional Court of Vienna A full summary of…

Yesterday, 25 April 2018, AG Wathelet has handed down his opinion in the Teva v Gilead reference (Case C-121/17) suggesting that the question should be answered as follows: “The fact that a substance or combination of substances falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for…

According to sec. 1 para 3 no. 5 Austrian Patent Act, programs for computers are not patentable per se. However a computer program may be patentable if it fulfills the technical character requirement. The Supreme Court confirmed that the technical effect is to be determined from the content of the computer program in the context…

Contrary to established case law and practice, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna stayed preliminary injunction proceedings in a patent infringement matter and conducted an oral hearing. The proceedings were stayed until the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal’s decision, confirming the validity of the patent in suit, was available in writing; the oral hearing was…

The newly established 15th Patent Senate of the Appeals Court of Düsseldorf (Presiding Judge Dr. Ulrike Voß) has referred a number of questions concerning the calculation of damages in IP cases to the European Court of Justice. This opens the floor for the ECJ to talk about damages, as far as I know for the…

1. Also in case a dependent claim is patentable on its own, fulfillment of all features of both the main claim and the dependent claim is required for infringement. 2. The scope of a patent is defined by its claims; the prosecution file may only be considered for interpretation if there are contradictions between the…