Germany Archives - Page 10 of 44

Case Law, Germany, Infringement, Second Medical Use

Still a tough life for patentees of second-medical-use claims in Dusseldorf – AstraZeneca loses battle against Hexal over Fulvestrant before the Dusseldorf Court of Appeal

Philipp Widera (Vossius & Partner)/February 5, 2019February 5, 2019

AstraZeneca tried to enjoin Hexal from marketing its Fulvestrant-medicament in main proceedings (after already having failed in PI-proceedings) due to alleged patent infringement of AstraZeneca’s Swiss-type claim patent. The Dusseldorf Court of Appeal, however, dismissed the appeal (docket-no I-2 U 29/18). To understand the implications of this case, one has to first step back and…

Case Law, Germany

German Federal Patent Court outlines detailed guidelines for royalty rates

Simon Michels (Stellbrink & Partner)/January 31, 2019January 31, 2019

In a recently published decision, the German Federal Patent Court outlines in detail which aspects they consider relevant to arrive at a royalty rate (ruling by the Federal Patent Court dated November 21st 2017, published in GRUR 2018, 803). It is one of the rare decisions where a German Court analyzes in detail which aspects…

Case Law, Germany

Patent case: E-Ink, Germany

Roland Schieren (Hoffmann Eitle)/January 28, 2019January 22, 2019

This decision by the FCJ confirms that, when assessing the disclosure of a prior art document, it is not permissible to supplement the disclosure with specialist knowledge of a person skilled in the art. The FCJ also confirmed that prior art documents filed during appeal proceedings are to be admitted into the procedure if the…

Case Law, Germany, Procedure

Patent case: Wasserdichter Lederschuh, Germany

Jan Carl Zilles (Hoffmann Eitle )/January 25, 2019January 22, 2019

The Federal Court of Justice held that if, according to the protected process, a half-finished product is to be processed in a certain way (here: one side of leather to be treated in a certain way), the purpose of the processing limits the subject of the process only insofar as the processed half-finished product has…

Case Law, Germany, Inventive step

Patent case: Rifaximin α, Germany

Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle)/January 22, 2019January 22, 2019

The provision of a crystal form of a polymorphic substance, which the skilled person inevitably obtains if he uses a process suggested by the state of the art for the production of the substance, represents the result of activities to be expected by a skilled person and does not therefore by itself involve an inventive…

Brexit, European Union, Germany, Unitary Patent, United Kingdom, UPC

The Unified Patent Court: all dressed up but no place to go?

Kluwer Patent blogger/January 18, 2019January 22, 2019 /2 Comments

It is often said that ‘tomorrow never comes’. Likewise, a recurring theme for some years has been that ‘the UPC will start next year’. As 2019 is now well under way, it is time to consider whether this year we can be more optimistic than this, and how the turmoil in the UK Parliament affects…

Case Law, Germany

Patent case: Datenversand, Germany

Axel T. Esser/January 9, 2019January 8, 2019

This decision by the FCJ confirms that the cited prior art should, generally, provide concrete suggestions, hints or at least provide other reasons beyond the recognizability of the technical problem to seek the solution of a technical problem in the way as presented in the patent. Case date: 10 July 2018 Case number: X ZR 65/16 Court: Federal…

Case Law, CJEU, Germany, SPC

Was there really no reason for (any) SPC-referrals after Medeva? Some thoughts about Judge Meier-Beck’s interpretation of the CJEU’s case law

Philipp Widera (Vossius & Partner)/December 20, 2018December 20, 2018 /3 Comments

In light of the Teva/Gilead-judgment handed down on 25 July 2018 by the CJEU (C-121/17) as well as the latest referral from the German Federal Patent Court dated 17 October 2017 in re Sitagliptin III (14 W (pat) 12/17), which is pending as C-650/17, Prof. Meier-Beck, the presiding Judge of the German Federal Supreme Court,…

Case Law, Germany

Patent case: Tretkurbeleinheit, Germany

H. Jeremias V. Wollschlaeger (Hoffmann Eitle)/December 14, 2018December 12, 2018

The FCJ confirmed that a new means of challenge based on the technical content of a document filed for the first time in the course of appeal proceedings is only to be admitted under the provisions of Section 531 paragraph 2 numbers 1 to 3 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, irrespective of whether…

Case Law, Germany, Inventive step

Patent Case: Synchronmotor, Germany

Volker Tillmann (Hoffmann Eitle)/December 9, 2018December 11, 2018

The FCJ confirmed that inventive step is to be acknowledged if the feature(s) distinguishing the claimed invention from the starting point for the assessment of inventive step are not directly and unambiguously derivable or at least rendered obvious by the prior art. This applies equally to functional features. Case number: X ZR 51/06 Case date: 29…