Infringement

Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.

Added matter, Amendments, Case Law, Infringement, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Plausibility, Revocation, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

, , (Bristows)/

On 21 March 2023, Meade J gave a bumper judgment in the revocation action brought by Gilead in respect of two of NuCana’s patents from the same family (EP (UK) 2 955 190 and EP (UK) 3 904 365, the “Patents”), which relate to nucleoside analogues.   Filling 102 pages, the judgment raises a number of…

Exceptions to patentability, FRAND, Infringement, Prior art, SEP, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

Nokia v Oppo [2023] EWHC 23 (Pat) In a new development in the global dispute between Nokia and Oppo that spans seven jurisdictions across Europe and Asia, Mr Justice Meade of the English Patents Court has found that smartphone manufacturer Oppo infringes valid and standard essential Nokia 4G/5G patent EP2981103 on an “allocation of preamble…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Enforcement, Equivalents, Infringement, Injunction, Litigation, Netherlands, Pharma

(Brinkhof)/ /3 Comments

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…

Denmark, Enforcement, Generics, Infringement, Injunction, Litigation, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Utility model

(Bugge Valentin)/ /4 Comments

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…

Germany, Infringement, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

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…

Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

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…

Case Law, Infringement, Injunction, Netherlands

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

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…

Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, Revocation, Scope of protection, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

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…

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

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…

EPC, Infringement, Patents, Prior art, Scope of protection, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/ /2 Comments

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…