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.
by Bernward Zollner The German law on indirect patent infringement is rather strict. Particular means which are being supplied to third parties relate to an essential element of the in-vention if they are mentioned in the patent claim. In a decision from May 2004 called “Flügelradzähler” the Bundesgerichtshof has stated that the mere exist-ence of…
The French Supreme Court specified the rules for the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the assessment of infringement of a process patent, holding that a patented process is considered to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalence when both means have the same function in order to obtain the same result as the…
August and September are traditionally vacation months in the English Courts although the Patents Court can and often does sit in September. As a result of this, not many judgments are handed down in these months. However on 5th September 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down an important and very interesting decision in the…
by Miriam Büttner As promised by my colleague, Rüdiger Pansch (please see his post on “Munich Appellate Court on Making vs. Repair” dated 28 October 2011 and the other earlier Blogs cited therein) we are keeping you updated on what is going on at the IBC-front. The German Federal Supreme Court rendered a judgment on…
The Court of Justice ruled that claims against different companies located in different Member States marketing the same product regarding infringement of a a European patent in one jurisdiction were so closely connected that they may be decided jointly to prevent irreconcilable judgments in the sense of Art. 6(1) EC 44/2001. In the present circumstances,…
The Supreme Court held that the patent claiming a device to be mounted on ovens used to industrially drain pasta was infringed by application of the doctrine of equivalence. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant’s machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court sanctioned the appeal court’s decision that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied. Click here for the full text of…
The Supreme Court held that Article 68 (3) IP Code relating to prior use, sets forth both a “quantitative” and a “qualitative” limit, in the sense that it “serves to identify the business behavior which determines the limit of the monopoly granted to the patent holder in respect of the prior user”. Since the prior…
On 20 March 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered its decision in the case relating to raloxifene, a molecule useful for treating or preventing osteoporosis in post-menopausal women, opposing Teva to Eli Lilly. This decision raises many questions, first concerning drug patents in particular (patentability of second medical use, patentability of the resolution of…
By decision of 5 April 2012, no. 5497, the Italian Supreme Court resolved an interesting case concerning the application of Article 68 (3) Italian IP Code, according to which “Whoever, in the course of 12 months preceding the filing date of the patent application or its priority date, has made use of the invention in…
