The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now issued its long awaited Opinion 1/09 on the draft agreement concerning the creation of a unified patent litigation system (UPLS). As is well known, this draft agreement drew on many provisions introduced for the first time by the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and…
With the recent decisions of the EPO Administrative Council CA/D 2/10 and CA/D 12/10 of 26 October 2010, the provisions originally intended to expedite the examination proceedings before the EPO and to reduce the average time needed by the EPO for grant will be relaxed. One of these amendments will enter into force soon, i.e. on May 1, 2011.
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recently further confirmed the basic tendency of bringing national case law into line with that of the European Patent Office. In the decision “Wiedergabe topographischer Informationen” (Reproduction of topographical information)BGH.Wiedergabe.topografischer.Informationen.X.ZR.47-07, the Federal Court of Justice had to deal with a method and device for the perspective display of…
The Patent Chambers of the Regional Court Munich headed by Judge Guntz and Judge Kaess, introduced a revised procedure to accelerate patent infringement litigation proceedings at the end of 2009. After one year, the new proceedings are well accepted by practitioners. The new proceedings generally procure more time and cost efficient patent infringement proceedings. The Munich Patent Chambers aim at offering an attractive court for patent litigation in competition with the popular courts in Düsseldorf and Mannheim.
An interesting case decided by Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.5 in May 2009 strives to put an end to the (occasional) practice of some applicants and/or their European representatives of trying to again pursue in a divisional application a claim that was finally rejected in the parent application. The decision further develops existing case law…
In its decision of 20 October 2010 (Docket No. 21 O 7563/10), Regional.Court.Munich.20.10.2010 the Regional Court Munich had to decide on whether “urgency” is required for measures for securing evidence and, whether the request for measures for securing evidence must be rejected if the opponent is obliged to preserve the relevant documents, for instance pursuant to pharmaceutical or tax laws. The Court denied both questions and has therefore issued a decision which allows right-holders to effectively secure evidence.
