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.’
“It’s the same thing night on night / Who’s wrong baby who’s right / Another fight and I slam the door on / Another battle in our dirty little war / When I look at myself I don’t see the man I wanted to be / Somewhere along the line I slipped off the track…
Historically, damages used to be calculated in the so-called “execution” (i.e. enforcement) phase of the proceedings, i.e. a second phase of the proceedings aimed at implementing the declarations and orders included in the judgment handed down after declaratory infringement proceedings. Due to the abuse of this system, in practice, the “execution” phase resulted in complex…
The German Supreme Court this year passed two major decisions on the requirements for invoking a right to prior use. In its Desmopressin decision (June 12, 2012, X ZR 131/09), the Supreme Court ruled that knowledge regarding technical effects is not required for a prior user to be in possession of an invention as long…
In a recent decision the new Swiss Federal Patent Court confirmed that it adheres to the case law with regard of the wording of prayers for relief in Swiss patent proceedings. Unlike in other jurisdictions, plaintiffs in Swiss patent proceedings must be very careful if they just adopt the wording from their patent claims in…
If replacement of a worn-out component during the lifespan of a patented combination product is expected in the relevant trade circles, this will form part of the intended and thus admissible use, unless the technical effect of the invention is reflected in such component. Otherwise replacement generally constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the component’s significance…
As any practitioner who has come in contact with the Danish legal system in connection with disputes concerning IPR will know, until now, the complexities quite often involved in such cases have often proven difficult for Danish courts, especially enforcement courts, to handle. Consequently, it has for many years been a focal point of IPR…
Almost one year ago the European Court of Justice (CJEU) “clarified” the law on supplementary protection certificates. On November 24, 2011 it rendered its verdict in the “Medeva” case (C-322-10). One should not forget that “Georgetown” (C -422/10) was rendered on the same day and only one day later, the Yeda (C-518/10), Queensland (C-630/10) and…
Thanks to the constitutional revision of 23 July 2008 (which created Article 61-1 and amended Article 62 of the French Constitution), a new procedure to control the constitutionality of laws was introduced into French law, which came into force on 1st March 2010: the “priority question on constitutionality” (“question prioritaire de constitutionnalité”). Before this reform, the constitutionality could only be verified…
On 3 July 2012, the European Parliament adopted the Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation on “Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property” (COM(2011)0285) at first reading. The document P7_TA(2012)0272, which proposes many amendments, is the provisional position of the EP subject to further negotiations. Between October and November 2012, representatives of the Commission, the Council and…
The Regional Court in Dusseldorf and the Polish Higher Regional Court in Gdansk have ruled in June and July 2012 that the Bolar exemption and the experimental-use exemption only apply to the testing entity and that a third party’s manufacturing and selling to the testing entity is not exempted.
