Legal basis The legal basis for compulsory licenses under German Patent Law is under Section 24 of the German Patent Act. The German Patent Act meets the requirements of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the implementation of the Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (Directive 98/44/EC). A claim…

The ‘new normal’ at the EPO and more particularly plans to allow oral proceedings by videoconference even if parties don’t want it, have been leading to extensive debate over the last weeks. No less than 47 amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case G 1/21, where the crucial referral question…

In my last post I deciphered several fake news, which spoil the public debate about compulsory licensing, I then mentioned a French bill proposal, introduced by Mr. Ronan Le Gleut in the Senate on April 8, 2021, whose I thought important to translate, so that it can feed the international debate on compulsory licensing following…

SEP-related case law in Europe is regularly reported in this blog, and other European platforms. Decisions of courts in UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands on FRAND royalties, anti-suit injunctions, anti-anti-suit injunctions, declarations of essentiality and other SEP issues are often thoroughly commented upon. This is not the case of Italian SEP case law. While…

The European Patent Office has invited its users and stakeholders to take position on the first draft of its „Towards a new normal“ orientation document. My experience with such public consultations in the recent past has not been particularly encouraging. It seems to me that outside views are simply collected and then moved into a…

At a time when a bill aiming at granting a compulsory license in the interest of public health in case of extreme sanitary emergency has just been filed in the French Senate on April 8, 2021[1], the fake news that spoil the public debate about the compulsory licensing keep on proliferating. These fake news, which…

Plaintiff’s arguments before the district court were often objectively unreasonable or frivolous; the frivolous nature of his appeal also warranted sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel of appellate fees and double costs. An individual who asserted that he was the co-inventor of a patent directed to a method of “reverse online dating” must pay the…

In the aftermath of the landmark decision ‘Unwired Planet vs Huawei’, a series of other FRAND litigations have followed suit. Cases such as Conversant vs ZTE/Huawei, Philips vs TCL, TQ Delta v ZyXel or Optis v Apple pertain equally to the licensing of standard essential patents. From an economic perspective this raises the question as…

The Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) overturned a first instance decision, making an interesting finding on the application of the “problem-solution approach”: if the revocation claimant submits that its choice of closest prior art only differs from the claimed invention in one (or more) specific feature(s), but the court finds that further differences exist…