Few would dispute that the Actavis v Eli Lilly decision from the Supreme Court in July 2017 represented – for better or for worse – a major change to the scope of protection of patents in the UK. Four months on, the dust is beginning to settle a little and we now have a handful…
The Federal Court of Justice held in the present case that it was not relevant whether it is possible to escape a declaration of nullity due to added matter under certain circumstances, as recently affirmed in FCJ X ZR 161/12 Wundbehandlungsvorrichtung, since the subject matter in dispute was directly and unambiguously derivable from the originally…
This case concerns the relationship between two co-owners of a patent and in particular the issue of whether and under what conditions one co-owner can claim compensation in respect of the use of the invention by the other co-owner. The FCJ held that an assessment of the potential claim of a co-owner for compensation for…
In a lengthy obiter dicta, the Barcelona Court of Appeal seems to depart from a longstanding assumption of Spanish law: that the mere continuance of the infringement (i.e. the presence of the infringing goods on the market) is per se enough to justify the urgent interest in the grant of a preliminary injunction. Rather, an…
The “representative” registered with the Swiss Patent Register for the Swiss part of a European patent does not constitute a legal representative within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, court documents must not be served to such “representative”, but must be sent by the official channels of judicial assistance in civil matters…
The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, did not err in finding that several claims of a patent for preparing a stable formulation of the antibiotic compound ertapenem owned by Merck Sharp & Dohme were invalid as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. Substantial record evidence supported the district…
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,…
In a Judgment dated 12 June 2013, the Spanish Supreme Court confirmed that it was possible to discriminate between different objective technical problems within the same set of claims. Accordingly, an independent claim may be found to be obvious, and yet one of its dependent claims could still be deemed valid, provided that it claimed…
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…
In a dispute between patent holder B/E Aerospace and C&D Zodiac that was instituted by C&D’s petition for inter partes review of B/E’s patent for saving space in airplanes, the Patent trail and Appeal Board did not err in concluding that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of…
