What happens in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system, if – during pending infringements proceedings – the nullity court declares the patent partly invalid? The patentee can amend its infringement action accordingly. The infringement action is then based on the patent claim as amended by the nullity court, and not on the patent claim as initially…
Once again, the German Federal Supreme Court has underlined the primacy of the patent claim over the patent’s description. The technical problem to be solved by the invention is to be established by virtue of the patent claim only. In consequence, a broad patent claim must not be limited by a specific technical problem expressed…
In this blog I report about how the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has recently eliminated some potential for conflicting decisions in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system. The separation of infringement and invalidity proceedings is the basis for what we call the “mouse and elephant strategy”. In the infringement proceedings the patentee tries to establish a scope of…
The last year has kept some Spanish Courts busy with a debate that already caught the attention of English Courts at the beginning of the XX century, that is, whether “omnibus” claims are enforceable. Article 100 of the “Estatuto de la Propiedad Industrial” of 1929 required that the last claim of the patent was an…
In a decision of 7 September 2010, the Dutch Patent Office (NL Octrooicentrum) on appeal confirmed its earlier decision to not grant a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for the medicinal product tocilizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against the human interleukin-6 receptor, which is approved as a human rheumatoid arthritis drug. The applicant had requested an…
The torrent of UK cases concerning applications for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) shows no sign of abating. Following the reference from the Court of Appeal in June to the CJEU in Medeva’s SPC Applications regarding the scope of the SPC Regulation (see previous post), the issue of SPCs for combination products has arisen again in…
The European Court of Justice held that Article 9 of the Biotech Directive (98/44/EC) does not confer patent protection to genetic information that does not (anymore) perform its function for which it is patented (in the case at hand the DNA present in soy meal). In addition, the Court held that Article 9 Directive provides…
Council Regulation 469/2009 (the “SPC Regulation”) governs the grant of supplementary protection certificates in the EU. Core to its interpretation are Articles 1, 3, 4 and 5. Most pertinently, Article 3 provides that an SPC shall be granted if, among other things and in the relevant member state, (a) the product is protected by a…
Schütz owned two patents relating to the field of intermediate bulk containers or ‘IBCs’, which are large plastic bottles contained in cages and used to transport hazardous liquids. Schütz objected to Werit’s sales of bottles to a company called Delta since Delta incorporated Werit’s bottles into Schütz’s second hand cages. The key question in the…
According to the Advocate General Article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive does not limit the scope of protection of patents for biotechnology inventions. Nonetheless protection for DNA sequences as such is excluded.
In its decision rendered on 19 March 2008 the District Court of The Hague referred questions to the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC 0f the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (“Biotechnology Directive”). In particular the Dutch court wished to know whether article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive should be interpreted as extending the rights conferred by a patent covering a biotechnological invention, or, on the contrary, whether it should be interpreted to limit the proprietor’s right to prevent the exploitation of material containing the patented product (DNA sequence), on the condition that such product still performs its function. The Advocate General in his opinion comes to the conclusion that it is irrefutable that article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive is a rule for the extension of patent protection. However, in his opinion the system put in place by the Biotechnology Directive excludes protection for DNA sequences as such. Such protection is limited “to the situations in which the genetic information is currently performing the functions described in the patent.” But how does this relate to the obligations under the European Patent Convention (EPC)?
