On Friday 13 March 2020, Birss J handed down a pair of judgments in the litigation between Evalve (a member of the Abbott group of companies) and Edwards Lifesciences, a veteran of UK patent litigation over the past decade. In the first judgment Evalve’s two UK patents, EP (UK) 1 408 850 and EP (UK)…

Recently the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgement of CDE Asia Limited v. Jaideep Shekhar and Anr. CS (COMM) 124/2019 has interpreted and clarified the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement of Alloy’s Wobben and Anr. Vs. Yogesh Mehra and Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in the aforesaid…

The IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) recently issued a decision in Dunjun v. Tengda ((2019) SPC IP Civil No. 147), holding that the manufacturer’s making and selling of routers directly infringed a telecommunication method-of-use patent even though the manufacturer itself did not perform one single step of the patented method. This article…

It has been a year since the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu & Ors[1]. However, the step may have proved to be retrograde. Background Monsanto Technology LLC (Monsanto) had a registered patent no. 214436 for Nucleotide Acid Sequence (NAS) containing the…

The Spanish company Fractus sued Xiaomi and their distributors for infringement of their patent on a monopole antenna with a radiation arm that is shaped as a space-filling curve. However, the provisions judge declared that the claim of the patent should be interpreted narrowly on the basis of the prosecution history and on the basis…

On 5 December 2019, the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) handed down two decisions in which – in a first for China, the SPC heard and decided on both the patent validity and infringement disputes in one consolidated proceeding.  Background The two actions arose out of a patent infringement dispute between the…

The patent licensee ASSIA was held to be entitled to conduct the present infringement action but was not successful in its claim. Independent claims 1 and 16 were deemed invalid because of added subject matter (intermediate generalization) and in an obiter dictum the court also mentioned that the claimant had not succeeded in proving infringement….

In another post (here) I have discussed the procedure for seeking post grant limitation in the framework of Italian court proceedings, and the closing line of that post mentioned that another interesting point of discussion would be when such post-grant limitation should take effect vis-à-vis infringers. In fact, a few decisions have touched this issue…