Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my interest, or rather my passion, for several Patent Law topics, including notably SEPs (see notably here, here and here), proof of infringement (see notably here, here and here) and UPC (see notably here, here and here). So far, UPC has not (yet) been the scene…

Just over a year after the UPC Agreement came into force, the Paris local division handed down UPC’s first decision on an infringement action. Unfortunately for the patentee, the court dismissed his action, ruling that the patent invoked was null and void. In this case, two manufacturers, DEXCOM and ABBOTT, were involved in a dispute…

The first decisions by the Central Division Munich, the Local Division Paris and the Local Division Düsseldorf adjudging a patent’s validity in main proceedings are now out. Taken together, they confirm the initial favourable impression from applications for provisional measures   and demonstrate that this Court is fully up to task. As regards validity, it…

In June 2023, the UPC – at the Düsseldorf Local Division – granted its first ex parte provisional injunction (“PI”) in myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG (“myStromer v Revolt”), despite the defendant having previously filed a protective letter. A year on from that decision, and with only one other ex parte PI decision having…

This post is continuation to the previous one published on October 27, 2023 and available  here. Although the approach may still be reconsidered by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court, the current update should already be taken into account while developing the patenting strategy in the jurisdiction. Background There are two pending court cases…

Moderna secured a double victory in the Patents Court last week (2 July 2024) in proceedings against Pfizer and BioNTech.  In the first decision, Meade J found its modified mRNA patent to be valid and infringed by Pfizer and BioNTech’s “Comirnaty” vaccine.  In the second decision, Richards J rejected Pfizer and BioNTech’s defence based on…

In his Abbott v Dexcom ([2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat)) judgment, published on 28 June 2024, Mr Justice Mellor was faced with the rather unenviable task of determining the approach of the Skilled Team when “due to their differing experiences and expertise” it was unclear if any of the experts were in a position to comment…

Prepared by Rob Rodrigues and Luiza Cotia The recent publication of the pharma tech-transfer guidelines (PDPs or partnership for productive developments) is bringing an interest for companies to monitor patent portfolios in Brazil. (https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/06/25/brazil-pharma-pdps-and-challenges-for-ip-owners/). In view of this development, one of the questions arising is how third parties can influence patent examination of cases that…

On May 30, 2024, the JPO announced that the request for a decision of granting a compulsory non-exclusive license based on public interest under Article 93 of the Patent Act, which was filed by Vision Care and VC Cell Therapy (the “Claimants”) on July 13, 2021, was withdrawn upon settlement.  It took more than two…

The reasons for the decision are now available in the case of Ballino v UEFA and others, following an oral hearing on 3rd of June 2004 in the Hamburg local division. As was previously known, the panel comprising Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch, Judge-rapporteur  Dr. Stefan Schilling, and legally qualified Judge Samuel Granata dismissed the application…