Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.
Everything flows, and the Dutch cross-border injunction flows like no other. From its source in the The Hague all the way to the cradle of Europe: Greece. So decided the Dutch Courts in the Novartis vs. Pharmathen case. The willingness of the Dutch Courts to assume jurisdiction to grant cross-border relief in international patent cases…
In an appeal of a PI decision, the Danish Eastern High Court has ruled to uphold the dismissal of Novartis’ application for a preliminary injunction against Glenmark, Zentiva, and Viatris, based on the European patent application 2 959 894. In its decision, the Court firmly stated that a preliminary injunction can only be issued based…
The so-called proportionality defense according to Sec. 139(1) clause 3 (hereinafter simply “proportionality defense”) is one of the newest provisions of the German Patent Act. It has only been introduced in August 2021 through the Patentrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz, a typical German word monster, of which an informative summary was posted here. The main driver of this proportionality…
On 24 August 2022, Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) handed down his decision in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC), a case on open topped washbowls made from moulded paper pulp, such as those used in hospitals, care homes…
Longi and Hanwha have fought several (preliminary) court cases, which eventually resulted in a (cross-border) injunction. An ancillary claim that was approved was a recall of infringing products. Longi challenged on appeal the decision of the provisions judge that recall would also extend to solar panels that were already installed, but the judgment was upheld…
On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…
Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou). The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…
As readers will be well aware, one of the points on which the courts of various European countries diverge, is whether or not the prosecution history of the patent at hand may be taken into account to interpret its scope of protection. For example, the UK Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment of 12 July…
Barcelona Commercial Court no. 5 – arguably Spain’s most active patent court – rules in an infringement case concerning motorcycle helmets. The features of a claim cannot be narrowed down based on a preferred embodiment represented in one of the drawings. While probably not a watershed case, this precedent should be considered in future disputes…
This post perhaps is a bit off topic since it concerns parallel imports and trademark rights. Nevertheless it could be interesting for the readers since it relates to the the pharma industry. Background It is well established EU case law that a parallel importer of medicinal products may only replace the original package if it…
