As the readers may know, what is referred to as a “protective writ” is an anticipatory defensive mechanism that a person that fears to be sued for patent infringement may use in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands or Belgium to put Courts on notice of the non-infringement arguments relied on by the hypothetical future…
In its decision “Fahrradkurbeleinheit” (“bike crank assembly”) the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has lifted an injunction by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on appeal (OLG Düsseldorf, I-2 U 78/12, 20 June 2013). Contrary to the first instance the court did not find for patent infringement. Questions of literal and equivalent infringement have been discussed…
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…
In 2008, the English Court of Appeal in Glaxo Group v Genentech ([2008] EWCA Civ 23) gave general guidance on the Patent’s Court discretion to stay legal proceedings on the ground that there are parallel proceedings pending at the European Patent Office concerning the validity of a patent. The “nine step” guidance given by Lord…
The Danish government has now set a date for a referendum to decide on whether or not Denmark is to join the UPC. On 25 May 2014, in connection with elections for the European Parliament, the Danes will be asked to cast their vote on the UPC. For a long time, the Danish government seems…
Ex parte measures are rather difficult to obtain in patent matters in Switzerland (except from evidence-protection measures). Nevertheless, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had the opportunity to opine on this subject in a recent decision dated 21 August 2013. Although this case will become better known because it was the first time that the first…
and Carissa Kendall-Palmer In HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), Mr Justice Birss ruled upon the validity and infringement of two telecommunications patents concerning smart/chip card technology. The Claimant came to the High Court of England and Wales seeking revocation of the patents; the Defendant counterclaimed…
This Summer we asked for your participation in a poll on the option to bifurcate under the Unified Patent Court (‘UPC’) and the implications this may have for litigation by Non Practicing Entities (‘NPEs’, or for the Lord of the Rings afficionados amongst you: ‘patent trolls’). Studying clinical trials more than often as part of…
Spanish Courts have recently decided two interesting cases that show that patent litigation is not the exclusive realm of big pharma or high tech. Patent litigation extends its tentacles to quotidian cooking tools that we and / or our most significant others use day after day in the kitchen. The first judgment, handed down by…
With its decision of July 25, 2013 (6 U 541/12), the Higher Regional Court Munich confirmed the first-instance decision finding that licenses under the patents of an insolvent company remain valid and enforceable. This case relates to the spinning-off of the stand-alone memory business unit from Infineon AG to the newly established Quimonda AG, and…
