by Miriam Büttner In a recent decision of 15 September 2011 (ref. no. 4b O 99/11) the District Court of Düsseldorf (LG Düsseldorf) found that a non-final decision of the utility model cancel-lation division of the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO), with which the utility model was declared (partially) invalid, is not a sufficient…
As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, is the holder of patent EP 0 443 983 entitled “Acyl compounds”, whose subject-matter is a group of antihypertensive compounds, including valsartan, pharmaceutical preparations containing them and processes for the preparation of these compounds. This patent, filed on 12 February 1991, was to…
by Dr. Ulrich Pross, rospatt osten pross Sec. 522 Civil Procedure Act (CPA) provided that courts competent to hear appeals on fact (Berufungsgerichte) can and must reject an appeal (Berufung) immediately without hearing if – the appeal has no chance of success, – the case is not of fundamental significance, and – neither the development…
by Rüdiger Pansch, rospatt osten pross And here we are again with more recent decisions on the bulk container paradox (see Brian’s post Bottling the After-Market; Max’s post on Patent Law and Philosophy; my post on Entitative Elements of Bulk Containers). Imagine you have an IBC (Intermediate Bulk Container), just as this one: Now, you…
The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) issued a nullity appeal judgment on 12 July 2011 in which the requirements for an amendment to be held allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC and Sec. 38 German Patent Act seem to have been further tightened as opposed to the previous practice. The decision (case number X ZR…
As is known, damages for patent infringement may be calculated using one of three calculation methods, i.e. infringer’s profit, licence analogy and lost profit. Two recent decisions, one by the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt regarding infringer’s profit and one by the Regional Court Munich regarding license analogy, are evidence of actual tendencies being taken by…
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…
Part 1 of the drama with the title “You Shall not Lie” is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam. It appeared to me that the potential consequences of this decision justify a further post on this matter. Or could you imagine to go to jail just…
by Miriam Büttner This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent infringement litigation (“You shall not lie!” – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings). Court fees are fixed on the…
