A patent is a right to prohibit others to practice the invention claimed in the patent. A patent holder can enforce this right against third parties to – in the words of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – ‘prevent further infringement and recover the losses incurred from any actual infringement.’
“Danger of delay” is not a requirement for the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. The inspection order need not to be filed immediately after the patent owner has acquired knowledge that the patent is (about to be) infringed. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be…
Although plans appear to be underway to establish a centralised enforcement court for patents in Denmark, the current position is that a patentee enforcing his or her rights, must turn to the local jurisdiction where the alleged infringer is domiciled. For the time being, therefore, all interlocutory injunction cases based on patents are heard by…
The gentle reader of this blog knows that on January 1, 2012 the new Federal Patent Court will take up work in Switzerland. As Switzerland’s court of first instance in matters dealing with patents, the Federal Patent Court will rule on civil-law disputes concerning patents. It will rule, for instance, on litigation over patent validity…
The Proposal for a New Regulation on Customs Action of May 2011 is presently under discussion in a Council Working Group. Among other topics, in particular the new right to be heard, the limitation of simplified procedures to counterfeit and pírated goods, the new procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments, the incorporation of topography rights into the Regulation, the handling of goods in transit and the structure of the new Regulation will probably need further clarification.The end of discussions is presently not to foresee.
The Danish Supreme Court upheld the Maritime and Commercial Court’s decision revoking an injunction against Teva issued by the Danish High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that a condition for the grant of an injunction is that it is “established or rendered probable” that the defendant will carry out the exact actions which are sought…
The readers will recall that one of the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctions introduced by Directive 2004/48 (the so-called “Enforcement Directive”) is proving that there is an “imminent” threat of infringement. In cases dealing with the pharmaceutical sector, Spanish Courts have interpreted “imminent” to mean that the defendant is in an objective position to launch…
One of the possible courses of action open to patentees when they suspect that a competitor may be preparing the launch of a product that may infringe a patent in force is to send a warning letter. If the response is evasive, this would normally help the patentee to prove that there is an “imminent”…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In my post of 28 April 2011, I reported that the Düsseldorf Appellate Court (Oberlan-desgericht) does not require urgency for inspection orders, whereas urgency is re-quired for preliminary cease and desist orders. Urgency means that the patentee is compelled to apply for an interim injunction in due time (approx. 1 month)…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…
AstraZeneca enforced its patent for an asymmetrical synthetic route to obtain esomeprazole in Denmark. The API manufacturer of the allegedly infringing pharmaceutical had developed its own- independent synthetic route with a significantly lower yield and had applied for a European patent for that process. AstraZenaca alleged that the detection of trace amounts (ppb) of certain…
