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.
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…
While in the past the German courts generally presumed that exposing a product on a trade fair constituted an infringing offer and, hence, a danger of repetition, the District Court of Mannheim recently raised the burden of demonstration and proof for patent owners. Following the (vague) reasoning of the Federal Supreme Court in a trademark…
The company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, is the holder of patent EP 0 443 983 entitled “Acyl compounds”, whose subject-matter is a group of antihypertensive compounds, including valsartan, pharmaceutical preparations containing them and processes for the preparation of these compounds. , This patent, filed on 12 February 1991, was to have expired on 12 February 2011. However, Novartis…
The Danish patentee H. Lundbeck A/S has during the past few years enforced its patent rights to the active pharmaceutical ingredient Escitalopram in several jurisdictions as also reported in several cases on the Kluwer patent blog. As previously reported (blog entry 3 May 2010), Lundbeck A/S has also succesfully enforced its patent rights in relation…
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now issued its long awaited Opinion 1/09 on the draft agreement concerning the creation of a unified patent litigation system (UPLS). As is well known, this draft agreement drew on many provisions introduced for the first time by the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and…
The Supreme Court held that if someone exports goods from Germany and it is not proven that the same person imported them into Austria, there is no infringement of patent rights in Austria, even when the goods are assigned to be imported into Austria. In this particular case the Court of first instance carried out…
On the occasion of a dispute opposing the Institut Pasteur and two Chiron companies, the French Cour de Cassation rendered on 14 December 2010 an interesting decision which confirms the existing case law on three points : the “file wrapper estoppel” theory, the contributory infringement and the infringement by equivalence.
Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!
By way of follow up of my many posts on the “intersections” between Italian patent law and the administrative procedures aimed at the authorisation of generic drugs (e.g. here, here and here), it is interesting to note another means by which the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) attempts to remain outside any patent dispute that may…
On 30 June 2010, the Supreme Court held that the ‘Bolar provision’ introduced by Law 29/2006, which implemented Directive 2004/27 into Spanish law, may not be applied retrospectively. In addition, the Supreme Court revoked the view expressed by the Court of Appeal of Pamplona and other provincial Courts, which had considered that the ‘Bolar provision’…
