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.
The case concerned the question of whether the sale of an incomplete kit of parts to a customer outside of the UK could constitute infringement of a patent for the assembled device for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (based on Article 25 CPC). The judge (Arnold J) also provided some…
The case concerned the question of whether the sale of an incomplete kit of parts to a customer outside of the UK could constitute infringement of a patent for the assembled device for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (based on Article 25 CPC). The judge (Arnold J) also provided some…
This judgement is one of many issued in the worldwide litigation pending between Novartis and Johnson & Johnson concerning Novartis’ patent for ophthalmically compatible extended wear contact lenses. The decision contains a recapitulation of all possible grounds for invalidity of a patent. The Court rejected the detailed claims of invalidity for lack of sufficiency, dealt…
The Court of Appeal allowed Grimme’s appeal, holding that Grimme’s patent for an agricultural machine for harvesting and separating potatoes (from other materials such as earth, clods, stones, weeds or the like) featuring rubber rollers, was inventive. Of particular interest was the Court of Appeal’s clarification of the law of contributory infringement (s.60(2) Patents Act…
The Court of Appeal confirmed the First Instance Court decision and held that Occlutech’s devices do not infringe AGA’s patent regarding septal occlusion devices, which feature braided metal strands and have a collapsed configuration for delivery through a channel in a patient’s body. The Court held – with reference to Article 69 EPC and the…
In Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH v Scott [2010] EWCA Civ 1110 the English Court of Appeal stated clearly its support for judicial collaboration facilitating de facto harmonisation of patent law in Europe. The Court then interpreted the UK provisions on indirect/contributory infringement consistently with approaches taken in The Netherlands and Germany. The case in question concerned…
According to the so-called “Duesseldorfer Besichtigungspraxis” (Duesseldorf inspection practice), a patent owner who establishes a prevailing likelihood of infringement may secure evidence by inspection of the allegedly infringing device or method by a court-appointed, independent expert. The inspection order is granted in ex-parte proceedings. Contrary to other preliminary injunctions, the required urgency is generally presumed…
In this blog I report about how the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has recently eliminated some potential for conflicting decisions in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system. The separation of infringement and invalidity proceedings is the basis for what we call the “mouse and elephant strategy”. In the infringement proceedings the patentee tries to establish a scope of…
By Legislative Decree no. 131 of 13 August 2010, which became effective on 2 September 2010, the Italian legislator passed a number of amendments to the Italian IP Code. One of these is new Art. 68 (1bis) on the statutory limitations to patent rights (which in paragraph 1 already included, and still includes, personal use,…
In my first post I have described the old shabby courtroom of the patent chamber of the District Court of Düsseldorf. Meanwhile the court has moved to a new court house which is situated close to the central station. This new location is the result of a more service oriented approach of the judicature. Not…
