The patent concerned claims a method of cooling animals characterized in that the animals are cooled in a milking stall so that the animals go to the milking stall spontaneously. The patentee added a disclaimer of therapeutic use. The claim covered only carrying out the invention on animals that are neither in a pathological state…

The Court of Appeal of Barcelona lifted a preliminary injunction on the grounds that ‘omnibus’ claims (merely a reference to the description or drawings without specifically stating any technical features) included in patents granted under the old Patent Act 1929 are not enforceable. According to the Court, the omnibus claim in dispute is not an…

The Milan Court revoked a patent on the second medical use of a known drug because excerpts of the protocol of the clinical trials aimed at proving efficacy of the second use had been published before the relevant date in a scientific journal. The Court held that the outcome of the trials – which later…

The Court of Turin held that Article 68 (1 bis) of the Italian IP Code, which was introduced by Legislative Decree 131 of 13 August 2010, establishing that ‘Without prejudice to the provision of paragraph 1, companies intending to manufacture pharmaceutical specialties outside patent protection may commence the procedure of registration of the product containing…

The Court, in infringement proceedings brought by Novartis against Actavis for marketing generic Valsartan, held that the assessment of infringement had to be made as of the time of infringement, not as of the priority date. This is the first decision in years in Norway taking a position on this issue. The judgement also deals…

The Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court and held that the act of replacing Shutz’s bottles in Shutz’s outer protective cages with Werit’s bottles constituted ’ making’  products protected by Shutz’s patent, which encompassed both the bottle and the cage. Click here for the full text of this case. A full summary…

In this case the claimant  filed an application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), however the application was refused by the Lithuanian patent office. Appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court referred the question whether the six-month period for application for an SPC begins on the date of granting Community marketing authorization, or…

The  Supreme Court held that the US doctrine of file wrapper estoppel is not applicable under the EPC. According to the Court only Article 69 of the EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation should be applied when determining the scope of a claim. The modifications of the patent application during prosecution cannot be taken…