In February 2014, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“MSD”) brought proceedings against Paranova Läkemedel AB (“Paranova”), alleging that Paranova was violating MSD’s right as an exclusive licensee of the European patent EP 0 595 935 (“EP 935”) by taking preparatory measures for parallel importation. MSD applied for a permanent injunction and corrective measures as well…
A former employee inventor’s obligation to sign a declaration of assignment of a patent application to the former employer can be enforced in summary proceedings pursuant to the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure’s provisions regarding “Clear Cases”, under threat of a criminal penalty against the former employee, and even after the termination of the employment…
Increasing the (grounds of the) claim at a late stage of the proceedings in accelerated patent proceedings is contrary to due process of law. The claimed printer cartridge is not novel since no structural (technical) features distinguish the patent from the prior art. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP…
Arbitration courts (which have mandatory jurisdiction over certain patent disputes regarding generic drugs) have the authority to issue a compulsory fine for not complying with a court order, provided that there is a present or imminent non-compliance with the ordered obligation (‘non facere’). A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP…
Arbitration courts have competence to declare the invalidity of an allegedly infringed patent where the question is raised as an incidental defence. The decision only has inter partes effects. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
The U.K. Patents Court has held Warner-Lambert’s second medical use patent regarding the use of pregabalin for the treatment of pain invalid on the ground of insufficiency. Even if the patent were valid, the Court held that Actavis would not have infringed Warner-Lambert’s patent as a result of any “cross-label” use of their product sold…
Although patentability is generally regarded as a question of law per se, the actual technical disclosure of a prior art example was seen as a question of fact and therefore a matter for the first-instance court. The Federal Court of Justice saw itself bound to facts determined by the first-instance court, unless there are specific…
The Bulgarian Patent Office refused to issue a patent for an invention claimed as a medical use because the subject matter constituted a method for treatment of the human body and therefore it was unpatentable under Art. 7(2) of the Bulgarian Patents and Utility Models Registration Act (“PUMRA”). The decision of the Patent Office was…
The Dutch part of EP 119 – allegedly essential to the UMTS standard – was found to be obvious over the latest draft of the UMTS standard pre-priority date read in conjunction with a document of a UMTS Working Group proposing changes thereto. The skilled person would read these together and so be confronted with…
The Court of Appeal denied Actavis’ claim for declarations of non-infringement in respect of several national designations of Eli Lilly’s European Patent. Whilst agreeing with the High Court that the national designations in suit were not directly infringed, it, nevertheless, overturned the prior decision on the basis of there being indirect (contributory) infringement. The Court…
