In a recent decision of 16 June 2011 the German Bundesgerichtshof has cancelled a decision of the German Bundespatentgericht because the Bundespatentgericht had not sufficiently respected the (constitutional) right of one of the parties to a fair hear-ing (“Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs”). At the Bundespatentgericht the parties had discussed the validity of a German utility…
Procedure
Precipitation is no micronization, according to the Antwerp Court of Appeal
The Antwerp Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of the Spanish pharmaceutical company Almirall against Teva Pharma Belgium (Teva) relating to the generic ebastin. It confirmed the decision of the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, although the Court of Appeal based its decision on other grounds. As discussed in a previous post, Almirall started…
(Indirect) infringement, Biologics, Inventive step, Netherlands, Novelty, Opposition, Procedure, Revocation, Scope of protection, Validity
Danisco v. Novozymes – DC The Hague v. Opposition Division
To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…
Supreme Court further clarifies the scope of reversal of the burden of proof in process patents
After years of not having handed down judgments in patent cases, in recent months the Supreme Court has handed down several interesting judgments which will hopefully give more guidance to lower level Courts. The last judgment in this recent saga, handed down on 18 July 2011, has confirmed the judgment of 19 December 2006 from…
Limitation of the French designation of a European patent: before which office?
Since 2009, French law has allowed patentees to voluntarily limit their granted patent claims. This possibility, which has existed for a long time in a number of European countries, (e.g. Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom) has recently been introduced into the European patent system through Art. 105bis et seq. of the…
Zeitversetztes Fernsehen, Court of Appeal Duesseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Duesseldorf), 14 January 2009
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…
T144/09 Traction sheave elevator, European Patent Office (EPO Board of Appeal), 4 May 2011
The board refused to find a set of claims filed with the grounds of appeal admissible, because it concluded from the circumstances that the proprietor had deliberately refused to file these claims during first instance proceedings. The intention of Article 12(4) of the rules of procedure of the EPO boards of appeal was found by…
Swiss Federal Supreme Court: Payment of Court Fees and Reimbursement of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees by Alleged Patent Infringer because of Defendant's Contradictory Conduct and Plaintiff's Good Faith
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court held in a recent decision that the Swiss company Teva Pharma AG had to bear the court costs and reimburse Novartis’s attorneys’ fees in preliminary injunction proceedings because of Teva’s contradictory conduct in this case. The decision was based on the following facts: On March 16, 2010, Teva was granted…
Premature clandestine marketing of generics by pharmaceutical sales representatives vis à vis physicians
by Max v. Rospatt In a recent decision the Landgericht Duesseldorf (4a O 277/10 – Pramipexol) issued a preliminary injunction against a generic company before the generic was listed in one of the usual publications (Rote Liste, Lauer Taxe etc.). Plaintiff asserted infringing marketing activities solely based on information obtained from an independent market research…
Who may bring an action for patent revocation?
Who may bring an action for patent revocation? Such is the fundamental question which has been submitted to the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in a case whose factual circumstances made it very interesting. On 13 September 2010, Omnipharm Limited served a summons on Merial to appear before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris to…