A patent is a right to prohibit others to practice the invention claimed in the patent. A patent holder can enforce this right against third parties to – in the words of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – ‘prevent further infringement and recover the losses incurred from any actual infringement.’
One of the possible courses of action open to patentees when they suspect that a competitor may be preparing the launch of a product that may infringe a patent in force is to send a warning letter. If the response is evasive, this would normally help the patentee to prove that there is an “imminent”…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In my post of 28 April 2011, I reported that the Düsseldorf Appellate Court (Oberlan-desgericht) does not require urgency for inspection orders, whereas urgency is re-quired for preliminary cease and desist orders. Urgency means that the patentee is compelled to apply for an interim injunction in due time (approx. 1 month)…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…
AstraZeneca enforced its patent for an asymmetrical synthetic route to obtain esomeprazole in Denmark. The API manufacturer of the allegedly infringing pharmaceutical had developed its own- independent synthetic route with a significantly lower yield and had applied for a European patent for that process. AstraZenaca alleged that the detection of trace amounts (ppb) of certain…
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…
Imagine: Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have one single patent which you could apply for at the WPO, the World Patent Office? A World Patent, which would be valid worldwide and which could be enforced in each single country of the world with worldwide effect? Decisions of the national local chambers of the World Patent…
Customs actions based on the EC Regulation No 1383/2003 are a very effective tool. Also patentees can file an application for border seizure with the national customs authorities to prohibit infringing goods from entering into the European Community. Customs authorities detain goods which are merely suspected of infringing a patent; they do not decide whether…
As reported in teh blog on 9 March, 2011, ratiopharm has managed on appeal to the High Court to overturn the first instance decision to grant a PI against ratiopharm which had initiated its own distribution of escitalopram products after the dominant wholesaler in Denmark was injuncted and the other wholesalers followed suit. The hearing…
Rambus and Micron have been involved in complex patent litigation in Italy since 2000. Things started when, in 2000, Rambus enforced the Italian designation of its patent EP 0525068 on SDRAM memories against Micron before the Court of Monza, obtained an ex parte seizure order and executed the same at the important manufacturing plant that…
In its decision of 20 October 2010 (Docket No. 21 O 7563/10), Regional.Court.Munich.20.10.2010 the Regional Court Munich had to decide on whether “urgency” is required for measures for securing evidence and, whether the request for measures for securing evidence must be rejected if the opponent is obliged to preserve the relevant documents, for instance pursuant to pharmaceutical or tax laws. The Court denied both questions and has therefore issued a decision which allows right-holders to effectively secure evidence.
