In the present preliminary case the consequence of the termination of the agreement between Medical Workshop and Sharpsight was that Medical Workshop was no longer able to use the name Invitria for the sale and marketing of the ophthalmalogic product protected by a patent owned by the single shareholder of Sharpsight. Case date: 16 October 2019…
Where an expression in a granted claim, taken literally and in isolation, would have the effect of excluding all of the disclosed embodiments from the scope of protection, but where a definition of the expression may be derived from the patent itself which would locate (at least some of) the disclosed embodiments within the ambit…
The patent licensee ASSIA was held to be entitled to conduct the present infringement action but was not successful in its claim. Independent claims 1 and 16 were deemed invalid because of added subject matter (intermediate generalization) and in an obiter dictum the court also mentioned that the claimant had not succeeded in proving infringement….
Bayer was not granted an injunction in preliminary proceedings because the Court found that there was a serious chance that Bayer’s patent would be held invalid. The fact that the patent had survived opposition before the EPO was of no influence since new, closer prior art had subsequently been found. Case date: 17 September 2019 Case…
A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity would lack novelty over a prior art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art disclosed the claimed purity at least implicitly, for example by way of a method for preparing said compound, the method inevitably resulting in the claimed purity. Such a…
A request for re-establishment should be filed within two months of the date of removal of non-compliance. This date may be the date on which the applicant became aware of the missed due date, even if the professional representative did receive the EPO communications mentioning the failure to comply with the deadline. Case date: 18 June…
Cases in which FRAND licences are discussed, and where if no licence is taken an injunction is requested, more closely resemble unpaid debt claims then IP-related cases and are thus less suitable for preliminary proceedings. Further, the fact that the case was complex, not only in relation to the patented subject-matter but also because of…
A claim to a device will be denied patentability under Art. 53(c) EPC if it can only be produced through the exercise of a surgical method step. A European patent was granted for a device for the desynchronization of activity of pathologically active brain areas. Specifically, the claim defined ‘control means, which are designed such…
Proceedings for the preservation of evidence and the subsequent infringement proceedings are two separate proceedings and only the latter is relevant for starting an intervention in opposition proceedings according to Art. 105 EPC. The admissibility of an intervention should be established at the moment of intervention and this cannot be changed by later events. Case…
The holder of a standard essential patent (SEP) should first notify the alleged infringer of the SEP, following which the alleged infringer should inform the patent holder of its willingness to take a licence. Then, said licence needs to be offered on FRAND terms. These steps are guidelines for good faith negotiations between the parties….
