The Italian case law on infringement by equivalent is rather scant and, until very recently, only one decision had been issued on this matter by the Supreme Court: 13 January 2004, no. 257, Lisec v. Forel, which stated that in order to assess infringement by equivalents it is necessary to consider whether the allegedly infringing…

In its decision “Okklusionsvorrichtung” (Aga v. Occlutech), the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) denied patent infringement by equivalent means since the contested infringing embodiment was disclosed in the description as an alternative to the claimed one. This decision was followed in the decision “Diglycidverbindung”. In a nutshell, the FCJ, in continuation of its decisions “Schneidmesser…

An SPC can only be granted if the product falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent. If the basic patent claims a combination of two known components (i.e.  a monoclonal antibody with a neoplastic agent), that combination is the patent’s contribution to the art. An individual component  is not equivalent to the…

The extent of protection conferred by a patent in Poland has its legal basis in the Polish Act on Industrial Property Law of 30 June 2000. According to Article 63 section 2 of the Industrial Property Law, the extent of protection conferred by a patent shall be determined by the scope of the patent claims….

The case determined whether Abena A/S (hereinafter “Abena”) waste bags with lace up sealing, which had a seam with curved corners in one side of the bag, infringed Etradan BS ApS´ (hereinafter “Etradan”)patent nr. DK 176709. The Court found that Etradan did not successfully prove that the extra seam on Abena´s bag was aimed at…

The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…

The Court, in infringement proceedings brought by Novartis against Actavis for marketing generic Valsartan, held that the assessment of infringement had to be made as of the time of infringement, not as of the priority date. This is the first decision in years in Norway taking a position on this issue. The judgement also deals…

The  Supreme Court held that the US doctrine of file wrapper estoppel is not applicable under the EPC. According to the Court only Article 69 of the EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation should be applied when determining the scope of a claim. The modifications of the patent application during prosecution cannot be taken…