The District Court of Turin rejected Merck’s requests for a preliminary injunction, finding lack of inventive step of the claimed co-formulation of dorzolamid and timolol based on a prima facie assessment following the problem solution approach of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this…
The Supreme Court held that the patent claiming a device to be mounted on ovens used to industrially drain pasta was infringed by application of the doctrine of equivalence. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant’s machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court sanctioned the appeal court’s decision that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied. Click here for the full text of…
The Supreme Court held that Article 68 (3) IP Code relating to prior use, sets forth both a “quantitative” and a “qualitative” limit, in the sense that it “serves to identify the business behavior which determines the limit of the monopoly granted to the patent holder in respect of the prior user”. Since the prior…
In a decision of 9 February 2012, the Court of Appeal of Milan decided a case concerning the ownership of the rights over an invention allegedly made in the framework of a work-made-for-hire relationship. The case is interesting as Italian law does not explicitly regulate the case of inventions made for hire. Articles 64 and…
By decision of 23 March 2012, the Supreme Court decided a case between two competitors in the field of steel products and machinery, concerning in particular the alleged infringement of two Italian patents covering a winding up mechanism for steel wire. The alleged infringer had counterclaimed invalidity based on prior disclosure, claiming in particular that…
By decision of 5 April 2012, no. 5497, the Italian Supreme Court resolved an interesting case concerning the application of Article 68 (3) Italian IP Code, according to which “Whoever, in the course of 12 months preceding the filing date of the patent application or its priority date, has made use of the invention in…
The Italian case law on infringement by equivalent is rather scant and, until very recently, only one decision had been issued on this matter by the Supreme Court: 13 January 2004, no. 257, Lisec v. Forel, which stated that in order to assess infringement by equivalents it is necessary to consider whether the allegedly infringing…
By decision of 11 January 2012 Pfizer was found liable of abuse of dominant position by the Italian Antitrust Authority and ordered to pay 10.6 million euro. My previous posts on this case can be found here, here and here. In substance AGCM (the Italian antitrust Authority) has now decided that Pfizer abused its dominant…
As stated already in one my earlier posts (here), Legislative Decree no. 131/2010 has introduced a new procedural tool in the Italian IP litigation scenario. New Art. 128 of the Italian IP Code now allows the conduction of a Preliminary Technical Assessment (PTA). In practice, as an alternative to commencing ordinary proceedings or preliminary injunction…
