A supplementary protection certificate SPC granted for an enantiomer (escitalopram) cannot be declared void because a prior SPC was granted for the racemate (citalopram) when both the racemate and the enantiomer are protected by individual patents and thus are different products. This must be so because otherwise the enantiomer patent would be invalid for lack…
By Giovanni Gozzo and David Nilsson The Svea Court of Appeal partially invalidated the patent of respondent Dustcontrol, insofar as claim 1 of the patent was concerned. The Court held that it could not be deduced from claim 1 that the filter cartridge at issue in claim 1 must be a unit that neither can…
The proprietor of a patent who has granted an exclusive license to a third party, has the right – in case of patent infringement – to assert its own claims against the infringer if said proprietor has gained continuing economic advantage from having granted the license. If the patentee is the sole shareholder of licensee…
“Danger of delay” is not a requirement for the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. The inspection order need not to be filed immediately after the patent owner has acquired knowledge that the patent is (about to be) infringed. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be…
The Danish Supreme Court upheld the Maritime and Commercial Court’s decision revoking an injunction against Teva issued by the Danish High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that a condition for the grant of an injunction is that it is “established or rendered probable” that the defendant will carry out the exact actions which are sought…
Contrary to the decision of the Opposition Division issued two weeks later, the District Court of The Hague held Novozymes’ patent to be novel and inventive. It also held the patent indirectly infringed. The court held that a literal disclosure of a claim feature in the prior art does not necessarily equate to a directly…
The Federal Institute of Intellectual Property can also issue a supplementary protection certificate to an applicant if a certificate for the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or combination thereof has already been granted to a third person. By interpreting the law in that way – only restricting the grant of a certificate for the same…
The difference between “inventiveness” within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and “inventive step” within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between these two criteria. Thus, the inventive step pursuant to § 1(1) Utility Model Act requires the same qualitative criteria as inventiveness pursuant to § 1(1)…
The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was impossible for him to prove non-distribution and that therefore the burden of proof was with the opponent. In…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a new prior art document D5 and argued lack of novelty over D5 or lack of inventive step over the combination…
