The Swedish Supreme Court held that in cases where the infringing act is the sale of infringing goods, the damage (in this case the right to reasonable compensation for use of the invention and compensation for loss of profit) occurs as of the date a sales agreement is entered into, and the 5-year statute of…
The Court of Justice of the European Union in clarifying the phrase ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation (No 44/2001) ruled that said Regulation is also applicable to court decisions that contain an order to pay penalties to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial…
Although plans appear to be underway to establish a centralised enforcement court for patents in Denmark, the current position is that a patentee enforcing his or her rights, must turn to the local jurisdiction where the alleged infringer is domiciled. For the time being, therefore, all interlocutory injunction cases based on patents are heard by…
A recently published decision of the Court of Turin in the case Merck Sharpe & Dohme versus Sandoz (decision of 7 April 2011), concerning dorzolamide hydrochloride timolol maleate eye drops, provides an interesting interpretation of the Italian rules governing territorial jurisdiction in the case of the infringement of pharmaceutical patents. MS&D sued Sandoz before the…
The Swiss company Bobst (hereinafter referred to as “Bobst”) is the holder of European patent No. 1 170 228 relating to a “device for controlling the means for feeding sheets in a machine”. After having had a saisie-contrefaçon carried out on 17 December 2007 in Fellmann Cartonnages’ premises in Soultz, in Haut Rhin (French administrative division), Bobst served a summons…
The gentle reader of this blog knows that on January 1, 2012 the new Federal Patent Court will take up work in Switzerland. As Switzerland’s court of first instance in matters dealing with patents, the Federal Patent Court will rule on civil-law disputes concerning patents. It will rule, for instance, on litigation over patent validity…
Part 1 of the drama with the title “You Shall not Lie” is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam. It appeared to me that the potential consequences of this decision justify a further post on this matter. Or could you imagine to go to jail just…
Vetrotech Saint-Gobain (International) (hereinafter referred to as “Vetrotech”) is the holder of European patent No. 0 620 781 designating France, filed on 5 August 1993 and granted on 19 May 1999, entitled “Light-transparent heat-protection element”, and concerning the field of fire-protection glass and its manufacturing process. Suspecting Interver Sécurité (hereinafter referred to as “Interver”) of manufacturing and marketing in France the glass…
by Miriam Büttner This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent infringement litigation (“You shall not lie!” – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings). Court fees are fixed on the…
As previously report on this blog (29 June 2011), on 20 June 2011 Floyd J. granted an ex parte interim injunction, sometimes called a “temporary restraining order” preventing Teva UK Limited (and two distributors, “Phoneix” and “AAH”) from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying its generic atorvastatin product (sold by Pfizer under the brand…
