(Indirect) infringement

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.

(Indirect) infringement, United States of America, Validity

/ /1 Comment

Please click here to find US patent cases from the the U.S. Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals with a detailed summary of each case. Recently added from our US IP Law Daily service: Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, United States Court…

(Indirect) infringement, Austria, Damages, European Union, Germany, Jurisdiction, Lithuania, Poland, UPC

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

The newly established 15th Patent Senate of the Appeals Court of Düsseldorf (Presiding Judge Dr. Ulrike Voß) has referred a number of questions concerning the calculation of damages in IP cases to the European Court of Justice. This opens the floor for the ECJ to talk about damages, as far as I know for the…

(Indirect) infringement, Enforcement, Germany, Injunction, Procedure, Validity

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

by Hetti Hilge In two recent and surprising decisions the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) clarified the effects of a first instance decision nullifying the patent in suit on the enforcement of a parallel infringement finding (including an injunction) and, upon second review, remedied what it considers an unintended oversight by the legislator (“Planwidrige…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Equivalents, Injunction, Inventive step, Netherlands, Scope of protection

(Brinkhof)/

Before diving into this year’s Oktoberfest with the Munich IP community, colleague contributor Thorsten Bausch summarized the German Federal Court of Justice’s case law of Summer 2014. As the days of raising beer mugs and polka dancing come to an end in Munich, so does the Dutch Summer (finally). Time for an overview of what…

(Indirect) infringement, Germany

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has ruled in its decision of 20 March 2014 (docket number 12 W 8.14) that an explicit allegation of entitlement to a national part of a European patent, e.g. by sending a warning letter or the filing of a court action, does not include an implicit allegation of entitlement (stillschweigende…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Poland

(Allen & Overy)/

The Bolar exemption must be interpreted narrowly in order not to affect the patent holder’s exclusive rights. The privilege of the generic drug manufacturers who are allowed to conduct clinical trials in order to seek regulatory approval for their therapeutic products based on patented inventions does not apply to their third-party suppliers. Thus, manufacturing of…

(Indirect) infringement, Equivalents, Germany, Jurisdiction, Scope of protection

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

Many practitioners in Germany thought the doctrine of equivalence to be rather at its end following two Supreme Court (BGH)-decisions in 2011 (“Okklusionsvorrichtung” and “Dyglycidverbindung”). Now, the renowned Higher Regional Court Duesseldorf has – in my eyes, correctly – made clear that the old dog is still alive. Background According to standard practice of the…

(Indirect) infringement, Chemical Engineering, Enforcement, European Union, Germany, Injunction, Jurisdiction, Procedure

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

The use and circulation of a product which has been put on the market by the patentee or a third party acting with the consent of the patentee (e.g. a licensee) cannot be prohibited by the patentee anymore. This concept of exhaustion is not only applicable to the territory of Germany, but to the entire…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Germany, Scope of protection, Second Medical Use

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The Court of Appeal Düsseldorf held that the offering of certain products by the defendants was not covered by the scope of the patent due to the specific “Swiss type” wording, which does not grant an absolute product protection, and due to the fact that the advertising of the defendants did not address the patented…