As discussed in previous blogs, four years ago (yes, it has already been four years, tempus fugit) the Barcelona Commercial Court Judges who hear patent cases published a Protocol aimed at providing a quick and efficient service to participants of the Mobile World Congress (“MWC”) that takes place every year in Barcelona. The clarity provided…
As published in previous blogs, on 1 April 2017 a new Patents Act came into force in Spain which has modernized Spanish patent law. For example, the new Law got rid of “non-examined” patents. As a result, since 1 April 2017 all patents are examined, which has aligned the examination procedure with the standards of…
Anyone who ends up litigating in Spain, be it as complainant or as a defendant, should be wary of the rigidity of Spanish patent litigation. Unlike in other jurisdictions, where the parties enjoy leeway to fine-tune their initial positions down the road, according to Spain’s Civil Procedure Act, the initial statements made by the parties…
In our last blog (Will the Spanish Patent Office accept the modification of an SPC’s term after the Incyte judgment?), published on 8 January 2018, we raised the question as to whether the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (“SPTO”) would accept the modification of the term of a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) after the judgment…
Readers will recall that, in its judgment of 6 October 2015 (Case C-471/14, Seattle Genetics), the CJEU concluded that the relevant date for calculating the term of a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) is not the date on which a marketing authorisation (“MA”) is granted, but the date when the addressee is notified of the decision…
One of the drawbacks of a fragmented patent litigation system in Europe is the existence of contradictory judgments on exactly the same question from Courts of different European countries. The most recent example of this anomaly can be found in the different conclusions reached by a Spanish Court and, a few weeks later, by an…
As readers know well, AgrEvo (T 939/92) is a landmark case in the history of European patent law. In this case, an EPO’s Board of Appeal found the patent to meet the “sufficiency” requirement because all the compounds could be made. On the contrary, it found the patent to lack inventive step. The reason was…
When the Kingdom of Spain joined what were then called the European Communities (the “EC”) in 1986, it had to approve a new Patents Act which sought to adapt Spain’s patent law to the standards required by the EC. For example, for the purpose of avoiding that an infringer could invoke a “cover” patent or…
During the past decade, Spanish courts have debated the impact of the TRIPS Agreement (“TRIPS”) on patents the applications of which were filed before 7 October 1992, that is, before Spain’s Reservation under Article 167 of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”) expired. According to this Reservation, European patents would not have any effects in Spain,…
On 24 November 2016, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15) handed down a judgment in which it confirmed that “the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patent for the purposes of analysing its validity cannot be different from when its infringement is analysed”. The Judges also highlighted the relevance of the…
