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.
Hearings in the UK’s highest Court concerning patents are rare. In fact, since the Supreme Court was established in place of the House of Lords in October 2009, there has only been one substantive decision namely the Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences case. Last week the Supreme Court heard its second patents case, Schütz…
The Federal Court of Justice held that data can be a product directly obtained by a patented process and can therefore be protected. An important issue was whether patent rights were exhausted, if the patentee consented to market a video masterband and the infringer used this masterband to produce DVDs The court discussed whether there…
The act of including a generic product into the official Austrian pharmaceutical product index before expiry of the relevant patent/SPC, is considered an act of “putting into circulation” and therefore a patent infringement. By the same token the act of applying for reimbursement by an application to be included into the “Red Box” pursuant to…
Note on High Court, 27 November 2012, Actavis/Eli Lilly Introduction Last year the English Supreme Court in a copyright case held that there is no doubt that the modern trend is in favour of the enforcement of foreign IP rights and that there are no issues of policy which militate against it nor is there…
Miquel Montana’s preliminary comments on the decision of the English High Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [27th November 2012] provide interesting food for thought. Since some readers may not be familiar with the facts of the case and the relevant procedural rules in the UK, I will attempt to provide an overview before providing…
On 27 November 2012, the Honourable Mr Justice Arnold surprised the European patent community with an unprecedented decision (Actavis Group HF and Eli Lilly & Company; Medis EHF and Eli Lilly & Company) where an English Court accepted jurisdiction to decide a declaratory non-infringement action relating to the UK, German, French, Italian and Spanish part…
by Hetti Hilge The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed that the patent owner may recover the infringer’s profit in so far, and only in so far, as it results from the use of the patent (BGH, judgment of 24.07.2012, X ZR 51/11 – Flaschenträger). With this decision the X. Senate (bench) of the BGH…
If replacement of a worn-out component during the lifespan of a patented combination product is expected in the relevant trade circles, this will form part of the intended and thus admissible use, unless the technical effect of the invention is reflected in such component. Otherwise replacement generally constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the component’s significance…
The amount of its profit the infringer will have to pay to the patentee as damages is calculated solely based on the profit earned by use of the intellectual property right. To determine this profit it must be assessed if, and to what extent this profit was due either to the invention’s technical features embodied…
The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…
