The Spanish company Fractus sued Xiaomi and their distributors for infringement of their patent on a monopole antenna with a radiation arm that is shaped as a space-filling curve. However, the provisions judge declared that the claim of the patent should be interpreted narrowly on the basis of the prosecution history and on the basis of the general knowledge of the skilled person.
Case date: 10 December 2019
Case number: C/09/580 126 / KG ZA 19-88
Court: Provisions Judge of the District Court of The Hague
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
Kluwer IP Law
The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?
Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.
It is not the first time that the District Court of The Hague takes into account the file history.
It was in the famous pemetrexed case: Eli Lilly and Company vs. Fresenius Kabi Nederland B.V., Netherlands.
C/09/54 1424 / HA ZA 17-1097, District Court of The Hague, cf. this blog July 18, 2019.
It is a development which has to be welcomed as it avoids giving an advantage to the proprietor, which wakes up well after the patent has been granted and wants to gain protection for something he had not envisaged initially.
Comments are closed.