In the UK, the signal “Another train coming” flashes when there is more than one railway line over an automatic crossing and another train is approaching. If you have avoided the first train, you must pay attention to the other train approaching not to be hit by it. We can take a similar warning from the order handed down on 12 February 2010 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris: the expiry of a SPC covering a combination of two active ingredients does not allow the exploitation of that combination if another SPC covering only one of those active ingredients is still in force: such exploitation infringes this SPC.

On 1 March 2010, Commercial Court number 1 of Pamplona handed down a judgement dismissing a declaratory non-infringement action filed by L.C. against N. The Court rejected the claim in its entirety, on the ground that L.C. lacked “locus standi”, as it was not L.C. but a third party who was supposedly to carry out…

The Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed Merck’s claim for injunctive relief against Teva, ruling that Teva’s montelukast-based generic medicines do not infringe Merck’s European patent (EP 0 737 186) with respect to an improved process for preparation of the active ingredient montelukast, either literally or by equivalents. A full summary of this case has been published…

In this patent case the Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred two prejudicial questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question relates to the interpretation of Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation. The second question is whether Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive is applicable on a procedure on the recognition and…

The German Federal Supreme Court decided that a forwarder has no procedural obligation to provide essential information for an eligible denial. Hence, a forwarder can plead ignorance concerning the accordance of the transported good with technical teaching of the claimed invention. A forwarder has no general auditing duty concerning infringement of industrial property rights by…

On 30 July 2009, the Commercial Court of Granada ordered an ex parte preliminary injunction against two companies that had obtained authorisation to market generics of sustained-release pharmaceutical compositions of Fluvastatin in Spain. Interestingly, on 27 April 2009, Commercial Court number 3 of Madrid had rejected a request for a preliminary injunction against other companies…

The Barcelona Court of Appeal confirmed a preliminary injunction ordered by Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona on 9 June 2008 preventing the launch of several generics of Atorvastatin. One of the main arguments raised by the defendants in their appeal was that the company that had filed the application for a preliminary injunction did…

This is the first case in the Netherlands in which a patentee, whose patent was nullified in first instance in proceedings on the merits, requested a prohibition of infringement of this patent in preliminary injunction proceedings pending appeal of the first instance merits decision. The Preliminary Injunction Judge of the Court dismissed the request as…

The Court of Appeals Karlsruhe has decided that under specific circumstances the enforcement by a non-manufacturing licensing company of an injunction based on a standard-essential patent may be provisionally suspended against security payment by the defendant until the decision of the appeal. Although as a general rule of German procedural law the interest of a…

The court found that the annexes to the expert’s report, filed in the framework of descriptive seizure proceedings, contained confidential information which was not relevant to assess the alleged infringement. It therefore ordered the expert to remove the annexes from the report and enjoined Novartis from using the information contained therein, subject to a civil…