The final week in July is always a busy time in the English Courts as Judges try to hand down judgments before the commencement of the summer vacation which lasts approximately two months. 2013 was no exception with three important patent decisions being given this week– two from the Court of Appeal on the same…
The Mannheim Regional Court decided on March 8, 2013 (court docket: 7 O 139/12) that a supplier which is located abroad is regularly only liable for participating in patent-infringing acts in Germany if the foreign supplier learns, e.g. by means of a warning letter, that its supply of products to the German market may result in a patent infringement under German law and if the supplier does not refrain from further shipments into Germany.
And Carissa Kendall-Palmer This piece follows from two previous postings to this blog by Robert Lundie Smith on the Nokia/HTC/IPCom FRAND litigation before the High Court of England and Wales (here and here). This latest update, for which Robert is joined by colleague Carissa Kendall-Palmer, explains how the joint trial of FRAND issues in the…
In my earlier posts (here and here) I reported and commented on the first two phases of the Italian Pfizer antitrust case, in which the Italian Antitrust Authority (IAA) accused Pfizer of having abused of a dominant position by judicially enforcing patent rights against generic latanoprost in the Italian Courts. A small but potentially meaningful…
It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…
by Miriam Büttner On 21 January 2013 we already reported on the decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) regarding the validity of German patent no. 197 56 864, the so-called “Brüstle-patent”, which concerns the protection of neural precursor cells, a pro-cedure to cultivate these cells and the usage of these cells in therapies…
This morning the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) added a new extravagant decision to the long list of odd judgments on intellectual property matters that during the last stages of negotiation of Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 (unitary patent protection) caused the European Union’s legislative bodies to remove the yet-to-come “unitary patent” from the reach of the…
If the patentee has granted an exclusive license after filing an infringement action, an exclusive licensee is (in part) a legal successor of the patentee. Therefore, as long as the patentee’s claims are pending at another German court, the exclusive licensee has no right to sue with regard to the same subject matter due to…
The Board observed that it could not be understood that the “technical relevance” criterion, proposed by another board in T 1906/11 for judging extension of subject matter, defines a new standard for judging amendments with respect to Article 123(2) in the case of intermediate generalizations. Instead, the Board had to decide whether the technical information…
The Board of Appeal accepted that filing of a criminal complaint for patent infringement could meet the EPC condition of Art. 105 EPC, for intervention that ‘proceedings for infringement´ have been instituted. In the present case, the licensee of the patent raised a criminal complaint (‘Privatanklage’ under Austrian law), requesting a court to institute criminal…
