A patent can be re-assigned to the legitimate rights holder based on a claim of entitlement under Article 118 Italian IP Code, even when the patented subject matter differs from the invention made by the legitimate rights holder, when such differences do not involve an inventive step. A summary of this case will be posted…
If the patent provides a multi-level method to be applied in more than one production entity (here: the preparation of sausage casing as endless rolls and their automatic filling at the sausage manufacturers’), the “skilled person” can be a team of several persons specialized in different disciplines, e.g. mechanical engineering, process technology and food technology,…
If replacement of a worn-out component during the lifespan of a patented combination product is expected in the relevant trade circles, this will form part of the intended and thus admissible use, unless the technical effect of the invention is reflected in such component. Otherwise replacement generally constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the component’s significance…
The amount of its profit the infringer will have to pay to the patentee as damages is calculated solely based on the profit earned by use of the intellectual property right. To determine this profit it must be assessed if, and to what extent this profit was due either to the invention’s technical features embodied…
Applying a purposive construction of the claims the Court found no infringement similar to the conclusion in prior parallel proceedings between the parties in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. The issue of added matter was left to be addressed in a separate judgment. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…
The Court cited the parallel proceedings between the parties in the United Kingdom, where the approach of the EPO Board of Appeal in T331/87 Houdaille/Removal of Feature [1991] EPOR 194 was applied, and concluded that the changes in the patent amount to added matter. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of…
The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…
The Court of Appeal partially reversed the Brussels Commercial Court’s decision invalidating Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram, to the extent that it had immediate effect. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Eurogenerics on the basis of Lundbeck’s Belgian SPC for escitalopram, despite the fact that the SPC had been invalidated in earlier proceedings, the court found that, given the suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision invalidating the SPC, a preliminary injunction could be granted…
The Court decided it has jurisdiction in preliminary proceedings in respect of the alleged unlawful act by a Dutch company, consisting of facilitating – as the holder of a marketing authorization – its Portuguese fellow subsidiary to infringe the Portuguese part of a European patent and corresponding SPC in Portugal, based on Article 31 EC…
