In 1984 Albert Hedegaard submitted a national patent application to the Danish Patent Office concerning an air-assisted device for spraying crops with pesticides. Hardi International A/S filed an opposition against the patent application with the Danish Patent Office. When finally granted in 1996, the patent had been substantially limited and the claims had been amended…

In its decision “Fahrradkurbeleinheit” (“bike crank assembly”) the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has lifted an injunction by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on appeal (OLG Düsseldorf, I-2 U 78/12, 20 June 2013). Contrary to the first instance the court did not find for patent infringement. Questions of literal and equivalent infringement have been discussed…

Ex parte measures are rather difficult to obtain in patent matters in Switzerland (except from evidence-protection measures). Nevertheless, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had the opportunity to opine on this subject in a recent decision dated 21 August 2013. Although this case will become better known because it was the first time that the first…

Under the doctrine of equivalents, a patent does not convey protection for all options disclosed in the broader patent description if these options are not specifically included in the patent claims. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that the processes used to manufacture the generic products in dispute did not fall within the invoked patents’ scope of protection, and particularly that these did not comprise equivalent measures, because the allegedly equivalent substances had significantly different chemical compositions and functionality. Finding the…

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…

by Miriam Büttner As promised by my colleague, Rüdiger Pansch (please see his post on “Munich Appellate Court on Making vs. Repair” dated 28 October 2011 and the other earlier Blogs cited therein) we are keeping you updated on what is going on at the IBC-front. The German Federal Supreme Court rendered a judgment on…

The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant’s machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court sanctioned the appeal court’s decision that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied. Click here  for the full text of…