In a detailed and impeccably written decision, the Madrid Court of Appeal (Section 32) has ruled in the raloxifene case, awarding damages in the high seven figure region. This is a landmark decision which is likely to shape patent infringement claims and damage quantification, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. The decision has important implications for…

In a technically complex infringement case, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 1 establishes ad hoc procedural rules for quantification of damages at the enforcement stage. This sheds light on the procedure applicable to follow-on damage quantification proceedings, which are a critical element of enforcement strategy. As such, this case has caught the attention of Spanish patent…

The Spanish Supreme Court rules in a patent ownership and trade secret dispute where a company had filed a patent application which named as inventor the husband of the company’s founder, who had previously led an R&D project funded by a competitor. The Court sets a high standard for ownership claims and, at the same…

Barcelona Commercial Court no. 5 – arguably Spain’s most active patent court – rules in an infringement case concerning motorcycle helmets. The features of a claim cannot be narrowed down based on a preferred embodiment represented in one of the drawings. While probably not a watershed case, this precedent should be considered in future disputes…

In a complex case concerning blockbuster cinacalcet, Section 15 of the Barcelona Court of Appeals makes findings on the non-obviousness of inventions consisting of the provision of an unexpected technical effect. In these cases, the technical problem can be reformulated as providing such effect, provided that it is related to the problem initially disclosed in…

Judgments from the Spanish Supreme Court on patent cases are a rare occurrence. In a recent decision, the Court rules on insufficiency of disclosure, a revocation ground which – once somewhat of a sideshow – is nowadays a staple of Spanish revocation proceedings. The Supreme Court provides some guidance on trial and error and undue…

In an Iberian validity dispute pitching a Spanish generics manufacturer against Portugal’s national pharmaceutical champion Bial Portela, the busy and influential Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5 rules on the “problem-solution approach”. In line with other recent decisions, the Court confirms i) that it may depart from the claimant’s choice of closest prior art and ii)…

The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) overturned a first instance decision, making an interesting finding on the application of the “problem-solution approach”: if the revocation claimant submits that its choice of closest prior art only differs from the claimed invention in one (or more) specific feature(s), but the court finds that further differences exist…

Another chapter in the pemetrexed saga: Barcelona Commercial Court No. 4 has ruled on infringement in the very first case worldwide concerning pemetrexed diarginine, a salt form of pemetrexed chosen by Sandoz in the wake of the outcome of the landmark Actavis case of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Judgment dated 12 July…