Germany is still busy handling its first big wave of patent troll litigation. At this stage it seems that some trolls may have underestimated the power of bulk defence. In a case concerning mobile telecommunication, a troll picked the last member of the distribution chain, a network provider, as defendant in patent infringement proceedings. As…
H. Lundbeck A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lundbeck) is the holder of European patent EP 0 347 066 entitled “new enantiomers and their isolation”, which designates France and was filed on 1 June 1989; it claims priority of a British patent dated 14 June 1988. The invention relates to the two new enantiomers of the antidepressant drug Citalopram and the use of…
The Patent Chambers of the Regional Court Munich headed by Judge Guntz and Judge Kaess, introduced a revised procedure to accelerate patent infringement litigation proceedings at the end of 2009. After one year, the new proceedings are well accepted by practitioners. The new proceedings generally procure more time and cost efficient patent infringement proceedings. The Munich Patent Chambers aim at offering an attractive court for patent litigation in competition with the popular courts in Düsseldorf and Mannheim.
Certain patent attorneys (patent attorney litigators) have the right to conduct intellectual property litigation in England and Wales, being “any matter relating to the protection of any invention, design, technical information, or trade mark, or similar rights, or as to any matter involving passing off or any matter ancillary thereto” (from the Higher Court Regulations…
According to Article 79.3 of the 1986 Patents Act, patent rights not registered with the Patent Office may not be invoked against third parties. This article has sparked the debate as to whether a non-registered licensee may initiate patent infringement proceedings invoking a license agreement that has not yet been published. In its judgment dated…
The Supreme Court specifically addresses the issue of consideration of decisions issued in parallel cases before the European Patent Office or before national courts in EPC Member States and holds that such decisions may not be left unconsidered. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
Two weeks ago the judges of the new Swiss Federal Patent Court convened for the first time for their swearing-in and elected the vice president of the Federal Patent Court among their ranks (Mr. Frank Schnyder). The president (Mr. Dieter Braendle) had been designated by the Federal Swiss Parliament in advance. The Judges will have to determine the new rules of procedure for patent cases pending before the future Federal Patent Court during the next few weeks. Kluwer Patent Blog will keep you posted.
In Germany it is well established case law that in normal PI cases “urgency” is a requirement which is not fulfilled if plaintiff waits too long before initiating court proceedings (although the standards for “waiting too long” vary largely between the different courts). In her post of 26 January Anja Petersen-Padberg reported about a decision…
In its decision of 20 October 2010 (Docket No. 21 O 7563/10), Regional.Court.Munich.20.10.2010 the Regional Court Munich had to decide on whether “urgency” is required for measures for securing evidence and, whether the request for measures for securing evidence must be rejected if the opponent is obliged to preserve the relevant documents, for instance pursuant to pharmaceutical or tax laws. The Court denied both questions and has therefore issued a decision which allows right-holders to effectively secure evidence.
The question in dispute was whether ratiopharm’s escitalopram was produced using Lundbeck’s patented process The Court considered that a reversal of the burden of proof in favour of the patentee might, in appropriate cases, be applied for process patents. However, in this case it was not disputed that the process developed and patented by ratiopharm’s…
