The amount of its profit the infringer will have to pay to the patentee as damages is calculated solely based on the profit earned by use of the intellectual property right. To determine this profit it must be assessed if, and to what extent this profit was due either to the invention’s technical features embodied…
Applying a purposive construction of the claims the Court found no infringement similar to the conclusion in prior parallel proceedings between the parties in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. The issue of added matter was left to be addressed in a separate judgment. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…
The Court cited the parallel proceedings between the parties in the United Kingdom, where the approach of the EPO Board of Appeal in T331/87 Houdaille/Removal of Feature [1991] EPOR 194 was applied, and concluded that the changes in the patent amount to added matter. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of…
The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…
The Court of Appeal partially reversed the Brussels Commercial Court’s decision invalidating Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram, to the extent that it had immediate effect. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Eurogenerics on the basis of Lundbeck’s Belgian SPC for escitalopram, despite the fact that the SPC had been invalidated in earlier proceedings, the court found that, given the suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision invalidating the SPC, a preliminary injunction could be granted…
The Court decided it has jurisdiction in preliminary proceedings in respect of the alleged unlawful act by a Dutch company, consisting of facilitating – as the holder of a marketing authorization – its Portuguese fellow subsidiary to infringe the Portuguese part of a European patent and corresponding SPC in Portugal, based on Article 31 EC…
The French Supreme Court specified the rules for the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the assessment of infringement of a process patent, holding that a patented process is considered to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalence when both means have the same function in order to obtain the same result as the…
The Board, exercising its power under Article 12(4) RPBA, decided not to admit the patent proprietor’s (appellant) main request in appeal, because he did not at all respond in substance to the opposition in first instance, but had merely stated to be interested in maintaining the patent as granted and that it would not reply…
The Board refused to admit the only set of claims, with an added limitation, filed in the patentee’s grounds of appeal. In the Board’s view, the applicant should have submitted the amended claims in first-instance proceedings. In view thereof, the Board exercised its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA by not admitting the claims. Click here …
