(Indirect) infringement

Infringement is unauthorized application of the claimed invention, e.g. by trading in a product that falls within the scope of the claims of a patent. Actively inducing, encouraging or materially contributing to the infringing activity may – in some jurisdictions – also constitute indirect infringement. Infringement by inducement and contributory infringement are two types of indirect patent infringement, recognized in the U.S. In Europe indirect infringement generally relates to the (offer to) supply a means essential to the invention.

(Indirect) infringement, EPC, Infringement, Injunction, Technology, Unitary Patent, UPC, Validity

(Bristows)/

On 27 August 2024, the Munich Local Division awarded a preliminary injunction (‘PI’) in an action brought by Hand Held Products against Scandit for infringement of EP3866051 (“Mobile computer configured to read multiple decodable indicia”) in relation to Scandit’s ‘Data Capture SDK’ software (Order UPC_CFI_74/2024). The Court held that Scandit’s software development kit (SDK) more…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Infringement, Injunction, Prior use right, Revocation, Unitary Patent, UPC

(Bristows)/

In a decision issued today, the Düsseldorf Local Division has ordered the first ever permanent injunction at the UPC following a hearing on 16 May 2024. The injunction covers seven UPC member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. Notably, Germany was not included in the claim. The patent in question in…

(Indirect) infringement, FRAND, Infringement, Injunction, Procedure, SEP, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

On the 23 May 2024, the English Patents Court dismissed an application by Lenovo for an interim injunction to prevent Ericsson infringing one of Lenovo’s patents pending the outcome of the UK proceedings ([2024] EWHC 1267 (Ch)). In particular, the Court found that the application failed on the basis that damages are an adequate remedy…

(Indirect) infringement, Equivalents, Patents, Procedure, Scope of protection, UPC

(Bristows)/ /3 Comments

On 13 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the Munich Local Division’s decision in SES v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024) that a preliminary injunction should be refused on the basis that there was not sufficient certainty that certain models of Hanshow’s electronic label products infringe SES’ patent. SES is the registered proprietor of the…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Enforcement, Equivalents, Infringement, Injunction, Litigation, Netherlands, Pharma

(Brinkhof)/ /3 Comments

Everything flows, and the Dutch cross-border injunction flows like no other. From its source in the The Hague all the way to the cradle of Europe: Greece. So decided the Dutch Courts in the Novartis vs. Pharmathen case. The willingness of the Dutch Courts to assume jurisdiction to grant cross-border relief in international patent cases…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou).  The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, China, Competition, Enforcement, FRAND, Germany, Infringement, Injunction, Litigation, Patents, SEP, United Kingdom, United States of America

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

This short post reports on one of the Panel Sessions at this year’s AIPPI Congress which took place virtually for the second year in a row. The tenth panel session of the AIPPI Online World Congress 2021 addressed global FRAND determinations by national courts and out-of-jurisdiction judgments in the form of anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions….

(Indirect) infringement, Germany, Legal costs, Patents, SEP, Validity

, (Hoffmann Eitle)/

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) confirmed that for setting the value in dispute of nullity actions on standard essential patents (SEPs) the well-established general rule applies, i.e. in the absence of special circumstances the value is 125% of the value of the infringement action(s) on the same patent (Order of May 11, 2021,…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, evidence, Kluwer Patent Cases, Legislation, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Procedure, Scope of protection, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.  The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement.  This second part considers the decision relating to…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, evidence, Kluwer Patent Cases, Legislation, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Prior art, Procedure, Scope of protection, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in the Court of Appeal.  If that turns out to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others is a substantial judgment to mark this departure.  In this case…