Although patentability is generally regarded as a question of law per se, the actual technical disclosure of a prior art example was seen as a question of fact and therefore a matter for the first-instance court. The Federal Court of Justice saw itself bound to facts determined by the first-instance court, unless there are specific…
The Bulgarian Patent Office refused to issue a patent for an invention claimed as a medical use because the subject matter constituted a method for treatment of the human body and therefore it was unpatentable under Art. 7(2) of the Bulgarian Patents and Utility Models Registration Act (“PUMRA”). The decision of the Patent Office was…
The Dutch part of EP 119 – allegedly essential to the UMTS standard – was found to be obvious over the latest draft of the UMTS standard pre-priority date read in conjunction with a document of a UMTS Working Group proposing changes thereto. The skilled person would read these together and so be confronted with…
The Court of Appeal denied Actavis’ claim for declarations of non-infringement in respect of several national designations of Eli Lilly’s European Patent. Whilst agreeing with the High Court that the national designations in suit were not directly infringed, it, nevertheless, overturned the prior decision on the basis of there being indirect (contributory) infringement. The Court…
In a decision to refund an additional search fee, an EPO board rejected a determination of non-unity based on a priori technical differences, which determined different problems solved by different dependent claims without determining patentability with respect to the available prior art found for the independent claim. Instead, lack of unity should be decided based…
Obtaining an authorization to introduce generic medicaments into the market before the expiration of a patent as well as transferring the authorization to third parties does not infringe patent rights in substances used in those medicaments. Nevertheless, the exploitation of such medicaments can only take place upon the expiration of the patent or the respective…
An EPO board considered the burden of proof of public prior use when the invention had been publicly visible only for a short period of time. The Board required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim feature could be directly and unambiguously derived from the public availability in the time interval. The opponent failed…
The Federal Court of Justice held that claim construction has absolute priority before issues of invalidity, such as the inadmissible extension or issues of patentability of the subject matter, can be discussed. The Court also reiterated that the determination of the subject matter of a patent (the invention) cannot be abandoned with the mere reason…
The Supreme Court stated that decisions dismissing a request for a stay of proceedings that are within the discretion of the court can generally not be contested according to section 192(2) Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (“ACCP”). This general rule does not apply in cases where the law imposes a mandatory stay of the proceedings….
The Oslo District Court held that the climbing skin concept “Fisher Easy Skin” for ski-grip on a snow base launched by the defendants Finor AS and Fischer Sports GmbH (hereinafter jointly “Fisher”), did not infringe Norwegian patent NO 318691 (the “Hartmann-patent”) to which Active Brands AS (hereinafter “Active Brands”) was an exclusive licensee. The Hartmann-patent…
