Case Law

Biologics, Case Law, EPC, EPO Decision, Kluwer Patent Cases

/

Inventions regarding a method of improving the yield of triploid seedless watermelons by pollination with a specific type of diploid water melon are not to be regarded as an essentially biological process for the production of plants and are therefore not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. These biotechnological inventions according to Rule 26(2),…

Case Law, Kluwer Patent Cases, Netherlands

(Brinkhof)/

Direct access to seized documents, selected from a larger pool of previously seized evidence, is denied on the basis of Dutch procedural provisions relating to Directive 2004/48/EC, because the defendant has not been allowed prior review of the seized selection. The court only allows access to a limited selection obtained by sufficient specific key word…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, European Union, Germany, Kluwer Patent Cases

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The CoA Karlsruhe held that the fact that a referral is pending before the CJEU regarding the issues of the criteria for raising the FRAND defense (C-170/13 Huawei) does not justify the suspension of the enforcement of an infringement judgment issued against a defendant. The court also expressed their expectation that – even after a…

Case Law, Inventive step, Norway, Validity

(Wikborg Rein)/

The Oslo District Court held that the expired Norwegian patent 306452 (“452 Patent”) was invalid due to lack of inventive step, which implied that its supplementary protection certificate SPC014 was invalid as well. The court also found the 176 Patent invalid. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

Case Law, France

(Pinsent Masons)/

When does prior private use give a party the right to continue using the invention? Any person may claim personal possession on the ground of Article L. 613-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code providing that said person proves possession of the invention prior to the filing date or priority date of the patent. In…

Case Law, Germany

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) held that where a defendant in a patent infringement action has been found to be liable for infringement in a decision that is preliminarily enforceable but subject to appeal, it is generally necessary to suspend enforcement of this decision under Secs. 719 (2) and 707 Code of Civil Procedure…

Case Law, Germany, Priority right

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The FCJ held that the priority of an earlier application may be rightfully claimed if the technical information described for a specific embodiment or otherwise in in the application is seen by the skilled person as an example for the more general invention disclosed in the later application and if this more general teaching was…

Case Law, Equivalents, Scope of protection, Sweden

(Bird & Bird)/

The Stockholm District Court found that the product did not fall under the wording of the patent claim or the doctrine of equivalence. During the application procedure before EPO, the patent holder had intentionally limited the scope of protection in order to avoid prior art. The features added to the patent claim during the application…

Case Law, Germany, Inventive step, Novelty, Validity

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The FCJ held that legal provisions in force at the priority date must be taken into consideration when assessing novelty and inventive step of an invention. These legal provisions may incite the skilled person to work in a certain direction so that this makes the invention obvious. The full summary of this case has been…

Case Law, Extent of Protection, Norway

(Wikborg Rein)/

The Court of Appeal held that the esomeprazole salt in Krka’s product with an optical purity of 98.8 – 99.5 % e.e. (enantiomeric excess)  was an “optically pure compound” as claimed in AstraZeneca’s patent NO 307 378. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Oslo District Court granting AstraZeneca an injunction preventing Krka…