A case concerning an automated vinification system offers us a glimpse of that rare species of patent litigation: the declaratory non-infringement action. The case demonstrates the need to carefully draft this type of action, as well as the need to choose the right evidence to support declarations that go beyond specific models. This is key…
This morning, the Barcelona Appeal Court has announced a judgment of 18 July 2024, reversing the judgment of 15 January 2024 from Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona, which had found patent EP 1,427,415 (“EP ‘415”), protecting apixaban, to be invalid. The main highlights of the decision may be summarized as follows: The first interesting…
In a Judgment dated 5 December 2023 in the landmark fingolimod case, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 10 rejected an action brought on grounds of unfair competition by the holder of a patent application. In unique circumstances, the claimant sought to prevent generic competitors from launching on the market during the pre-grant provisional protection period. Is…
In a detailed and impeccably written decision, the Madrid Court of Appeal (Section 32) has ruled in the raloxifene case, awarding damages in the high seven figure region. This is a landmark decision which is likely to shape patent infringement claims and damage quantification, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. The decision has important implications for…
On 23 June 2023, the Madrid Appeal Court (Section 32) published one of the most interesting judgments coming from Spanish courts during the last few years. The first point of interest is that this is one of the first judgments handed down by the brand new “Section 32” of the Madrid Appeal Court, recently established…
In a technically complex infringement case, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 1 establishes ad hoc procedural rules for quantification of damages at the enforcement stage. This sheds light on the procedure applicable to follow-on damage quantification proceedings, which are a critical element of enforcement strategy. As such, this case has caught the attention of Spanish patent…
As explained in our entry UPC: four reasons why the PPA is not legally in force, published on April 21, 2022, one of the collateral damages of Brexit is that the conditions for the entry into force of the “Protocol to the Agreement on a UPC on Provisional Application” (the “PPA”), which included the ratification…
As readers are well aware, Directive 2004/48 EC (known as the “Enforcement Directive”), stemming from Part III of the TRIPS Agreement, was meant to introduce a minimum level of intellectual property protection throughout the European Union. For example, article 13 establishes that Member States must guarantee that judicial authorities can order the party found to…
The Spanish Supreme Court rules in a patent ownership and trade secret dispute where a company had filed a patent application which named as inventor the husband of the company’s founder, who had previously led an R&D project funded by a competitor. The Court sets a high standard for ownership claims and, at the same…
To date, final decisions from the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (“SPTO”) dealing with matters such as patents or supplementary protection certificates (“SPC”) may be appealed before the administrative law chamber of what are known as the Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“High Courts of Justice”). Although these Courts are highly specialised in public law matters,…
