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 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…
The Italian case law on infringement by equivalent is rather scant and, until very recently, only one decision had been issued on this matter by the Supreme Court: 13 January 2004, no. 257, Lisec v. Forel, which stated that in order to assess infringement by equivalents it is necessary to consider whether the allegedly infringing…
The District Court of Duesseldorf will set up a third division (panel of judges) for patent infringement litigation. In addition, the Duesseldorf Court of Appeal will at least staff up, and possibly set up a second patent senate for appeal cases. With about 600 patent cases per year, the District Court of Duesseldorf is the…
On the defendant’s side, knowing what the patent dispute is all about is essential for your strategy. Not only do you need to adjust your non-infringement arguments to the plaintiff’s assertions concerning how the features of the claim are fulfilled in the attacked embodiment. Even more importantly, the scope of an infringement verdict is determined…
On 20 January 2012 the Court of Appeal in England heard the case of Apimed Medical Honey v Brightwake Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 5. Apimed owned European Patent (UK) 1,237,561 (‘the Patent’) for an invention of “Medical dressings comprising gelled honey” and this was held invalid for obviousness at first instance in the Patent’s County…
In 1984, the claimant filed an application for an agricultural crop spraying device which by the use of compressed air was intended to offer a more efficient means of dispensing the liquid. In 1986, the claimant sent a copy of the application to the defendant and in 1989 the claimant alleged having noticed that the…
The recent judgment from the ECJ of 24 November 2011 in case C-322/10 (“Medeva”) has surprised the patent community, since the ECJ appears to have changed the view expressed in its judgment of 16 September of 1999 in case C-392/97 (“Farmitalia”), where the Court declared that it was not for the ECJ, but for national…
As stated already in one my earlier posts (here), Legislative Decree no. 131/2010 has introduced a new procedural tool in the Italian IP litigation scenario. New Art. 128 of the Italian IP Code now allows the conduction of a Preliminary Technical Assessment (PTA). In practice, as an alternative to commencing ordinary proceedings or preliminary injunction…
by Bernward Zollner rospatt osten pross In two decisions of May and September 2011 the Appeal Court Düsseldorf had to comment on various issues concerning the accounting and determination of patent infringer’s profit. In the decision of May 2011 it is stated that an obligation of defend-ant to amend or specify an accounting cannot be…
On 8 December 2011, the presiding judge of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris has rendered an order in the context of the worldwide battle between Samsung and Apple. Samsung alleged that Apple’s iPhones 4S contain chips infringing its European patents No. 1 188 269 and 1 097 516, declared essential to the UMTS standard within the framework of ETSI (European…
