One of the worst nightmares or, in a few cases, real events in a patent professional’s life is when he/she realizes that an important term has inadvertently been missed and the usual means of term extension are no longer available. What then? Will the hardship of the applicable European or national statute inevitably hit you?…
Yesterday, 25 April 2018, AG Wathelet has handed down his opinion in the Teva v Gilead reference (Case C-121/17) suggesting that the question should be answered as follows: “The fact that a substance or combination of substances falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for…
The Oslo District Court held that the climbing skin concept “Fisher Easy Skin” for ski-grip on a snow base launched by the defendants Finor AS and Fischer Sports GmbH (hereinafter jointly “Fisher”), did not infringe Norwegian patent NO 318691 (the “Hartmann-patent”) to which Active Brands AS (hereinafter “Active Brands”) was an exclusive licensee. The Hartmann-patent…
The Oslo District Court invalidated the Norwegian patent NO 324 454 B3 on a method intended for the direct detection of oil and gas in subsea reservoirs using electromagnetic measurements due to lack of novelty over four citations. This judgment differed from the English Court of Appeal, which had found that there were no grounds…
In its decision 24 April 2015, the Borgarting Court of Appeal upheld a decision from the Oslo District Court revoking Genentech’s Norwegian patent NO 323 557 (the ‘557-patent) which concerns formulations of pharmaceutical proteins, including trastuzumab. Trastuzumab is the active ingredient in Genentech’s product Herceptin. Hospira successfully argued that the disputed claims of the ‘557-patent…
Both parties’ patents in dispute relate to chemical compounds that are appropriate for use in pharmaceutical drugs, in particular for the treatment of flaviviridae infections such as hepatitis C virus infections. Ruling that Idenix’ patent lacks a sufficiently clear description, and that Gilead’s patent is novel and inventive, the Oslo District Court declared Idenix’ patent…
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.
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…
The Oslo District Court held that Jets AS’ patent for a liquid seal pump of the helical screw type for use in vacuum drainage systems lacked novelty over one of Jets’ own patents. Despite the court’s finding on invalidity, the court did not consider Jets warning letter to a customer of its competitor, Evac Oy,…
The Court of Appeal dismissed Pharmaq’s claim that Intervet’s patent claiming deposited virus strains and closely related strains sharing genotypic and phenotypic characteristics was invalid and that its vaccine did not infringe. The court held that the patent only covered the virus in isolated form and that the isolation of the virus strain from nature…
