Scope of protection

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Equivalents, Injunction, Inventive step, Netherlands, Scope of protection

(Brinkhof)/

Before diving into this year’s Oktoberfest with the Munich IP community, colleague contributor Thorsten Bausch summarized the German Federal Court of Justice’s case law of Summer 2014. As the days of raising beer mugs and polka dancing come to an end in Munich, so does the Dutch Summer (finally). Time for an overview of what…

Case Law, Equivalents, Scope of protection, Sweden

(Bird & Bird)/

The Stockholm District Court found that the product did not fall under the wording of the patent claim or the doctrine of equivalence. During the application procedure before EPO, the patent holder had intentionally limited the scope of protection in order to avoid prior art. The features added to the patent claim during the application…

Procedure, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

Patent litigators around Europe will be taking note of the latest significant development from the English Patents Court in the case of Actavis v Eli Lilly [2014] EWHC 1511 (Pat) (judgment dated 15 May 2014), in which the English Court decided to grant declarations of non-infringement (DNIs) for three foreign designations of a European Patent…

Germany, Scope of protection

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

Just recently, the judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bun-desgerichtshof, BGH) in re X ZR 31/11 concerning a tyre removal machine has been published. This judgement is of relevance as the Federal Court of Justice had to answer a question of claim construction relevant in infringement and nullity proceedings likewise. The relevant question…

(Indirect) infringement, Countries, Equivalents, Germany, Scope of protection

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

Many practitioners in Germany thought the doctrine of equivalence to be rather at its end following two Supreme Court (BGH)-decisions in 2011 (“Okklusionsvorrichtung” and “Dyglycidverbindung”). Now, the renowned Higher Regional Court Duesseldorf has – in my eyes, correctly – made clear that the old dog is still alive. Background According to standard practice of the…

Enforcement, Injunction, Mechanical Engineering, Novelty, Procedure, Scope of protection, Switzerland, Validity

(MLL Legal Ltd.)/

The wording of prayers for relief in patent infringement proceedings remains a hotly debated issue in Switzerland. In a landmark decision dated 2004 (BGE 131 III 70) the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that the patent infringing goods or procedures had to be exactly described in the prayers of relief of a cease-and-desist order. Since…

Austria, Case Law, Scope of protection

(Gassauer-Fleissner Rechtsanwälte GmbH)/

1. Also in case a dependent claim is patentable on its own, fulfillment of all features of both the main claim and the dependent claim is required for infringement. 2. The scope of a patent is defined by its claims; the prosecution file may only be considered for interpretation if there are contradictions between the…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Germany, Scope of protection, Second Medical Use

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The Court of Appeal Düsseldorf held that the offering of certain products by the defendants was not covered by the scope of the patent due to the specific “Swiss type” wording, which does not grant an absolute product protection, and due to the fact that the advertising of the defendants did not address the patented…

Antibodies, EPC, Germany, Scope of protection, Sufficiency of disclosure

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

Different views from the EPO and Germany on the same case 1. Introduction Functional features in patent claims may provide protection not only for specific embodiments disclosed in the patent specification, but also for undisclosed (future) embodiments. A classic example is a claim of the format “An inhibitor of protein P for the treatment of…

Amendments, Chemical Engineering, Germany, Scope of protection, SPC

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

In Medeva (C-322/10 of 24 November 2011) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had ruled that a Supplementary Protection Certificate relating to a combination of active ingredients can only be granted in view of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, if the active ingredients are “specified” in the wording of…