In proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with a sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed or that such infringement is imminent. Additionally,…
Today we are uncorking another bottle of the good stuff with yet another dispute in the winemaking space. A very thorough and well-written decision from the Valencia Court of Appeal in a non-infringement and validity case highlights the growing maturity and increasing reliability of the Valencian courts as a forum for patent disputes. However, the…
In July 2023, the Japanese electronics company Panasonic initiated a series of patent infringement and FRAND-related proceedings against several subsidiaries of the Chinese consumer electronics maker Oppo (and in parallel against another Chinese company, i.e. Xiaomi), at the local divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Mannheim and Munich (*). Panasonic’s suit targeted Oppo…
A case concerning an automated vinification system offers us a glimpse of that rare species of patent litigation: the declaratory non-infringement action. The case demonstrates the need to carefully draft this type of action, as well as the need to choose the right evidence to support declarations that go beyond specific models. This is key…
UPC 252/2023 NanoString v Harvard ACT_551180/2023 (UPC_CFI_252/2023) The UPC’s Munich Central Division has recently issued its decision revoking Harvard’s EP 2794928 B1 (“the Patent”) in DE, NL, and FR, with other EPO member states likely excluded from the decision on commercial grounds having lapsed during opposition proceedings in 2019. The decision is appealable. The NanoString decision…
After Novartis had obtained a preliminary injunction against Pharmathen, it observed that there were still infringing acts being performed. In the first instance, the provisions judge sided with Novartis and ordered that Pharmathen had to pay EUR 7,500,000 as a penalty. On appeal Pharmathen tried to reverse this verdict, but its efforts were in vain….
When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but rather determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must…
In a second case between DexCom and Abbott, DexCom claimed against Abbott for infringement of a divisional patent by its glucose monitoring system. However, Abbott, in a similar fashion as with the parent patent, also counterclaimed for revocation of the divisional patent. Case date: 31 July 2024 Case number: CFI 233/2023547520/20232178/2024 Court: UPC Local divisions of the…
Background In June 2024, we reported that in an application for provisional measures brought by Abbott Diabetes Care against Sibio Technology, The Hague Local Division (“LD”) determined, inter alia, that it had competence for Ireland, in the sense that it could grant a PI extending to Ireland under European patent validated in that country. In…
In a long awaited, but timely decision the Düsseldorf local division has the honour to be the first to decide an infringement case before the UPC. Indeed, the court lived up to its promise to deliver a decision in about 1 year. The decision itself, where the patent was found invalid, but an auxiliary request…
