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.
This blog relates to the decision “Lungenfunktionsmessgerät” (lung function analyser) by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Duesseldorf (judgement of 24 February 2011, docket no. I-2 U 122/09). The court had to deal with the differentiation between direct and indirect patent infringement. The patent in suit, EP 0 606 351, provided for an apparatus for…
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 Turin held that Article 68 (1 bis) of the Italian IP Code, which was introduced by Legislative Decree 131 of 13 August 2010, establishing that ‘Without prejudice to the provision of paragraph 1, companies intending to manufacture pharmaceutical specialties outside patent protection may commence the procedure of registration of the product containing…
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…
The Court, in infringement proceedings brought by Novartis against Actavis for marketing generic Valsartan, held that the assessment of infringement had to be made as of the time of infringement, not as of the priority date. This is the first decision in years in Norway taking a position on this issue. The judgement also deals…
In the framework of preliminary injunction proceedings instituted by AstraZeneca against the Italian subsidiary of Stada, EG S.p.A., by decision of 11 – 14 February 2011, the IP Chamber of the Court of Turin issued an interesting order concerning the application of Art. 68 (1bis) IP Code, according to which “companies intending to manufacture pharmaceutical…
On 15 March 2011, in a dispute opposing the companies E.I Du Pont de Nemours and Merck and companies Mylan and Qualimed, the Cour d’Appel of Paris confirmed the order handed down on 12 February 2010 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, subject-matter of a previous post. The American company E.I. Du Pont de…
The Supreme Court held that the US doctrine of file wrapper estoppel is not applicable under the EPC. According to the Court only Article 69 of the EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation should be applied when determining the scope of a claim. The modifications of the patent application during prosecution cannot be taken…
The patentee (Claimant) filed a request for an interim injunction against the Defendant, ordering it to stop using the patented method, stop selling or importing Valsacor film coated tablets or any other products that would infringe the European patent, to seize the mentioned tablets, and to order Defendant to pay a penalty. The court rejected…
Daiichi Sankyo (hereinafter referred to as “Daiichi”) was the holder, for a drug whose active principle was pravastatine, of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) granted on 26 August 1992 which expired on 10 August 2006. This company claimed that Sandoz had, since July 2006, manufactured and put on the French market a generic drug of pravastatine, thereby infringing the exclusive…
