One of the remedies available to a patent holder against a patent infringer is an injunction to prevent future. Two types are generally available: a preliminary injunction and an injunction in proceedings on the merits. A preliminary injunction is a provisional measures which has to be confirmed in merits proceedings or otherwise ceases to have effect. In European patent law a (provisional) cross-border injunction is possible: a court in one European state can prohibit infringement in several other European states.
The Appeal Court Karlsruhe has recently issued a judgement in a preliminary injunction proceeding. Plaintiff has sought to obtain a confirmation of the first instance’s judgement. Defendant had filed the appeal against the judgement by which he had been ordered to cease and desist from producing, offering and marketing the patent infringing devices after the…
The holder of a SPC fearing that competitors submit before the expiry of its title a tender in response to invitations to tender, for a products’ supply after the expiry of the title, requested an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement. Therefore, by three orders issued on 19 August 2010, the Judge in preliminary proceedings at the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris deals with two important questions, already known by other courts in Europe: which elements can characterise the imminence of the infringement? is an offer formulated during the validity of the title an infringement although the supply of the products at issue would take place after the expiry of the title?
The UK has long been considered a favourable jurisdiction for pharmaceutical patent holders to seek an interim or preliminary injunction. In particular, from 2001 the English Courts have imposed an obligation for generics companies to “clear the way” (i.e. obtain a declaration of non-infringement or start invalidity proceedings in respect of any relevant patents they…
Denmark, as one of only a very few countries in the Western world, has no specialty patents court(s) for first instance PI proceedings. Instead, an application for a PI is heard by the bailiff’s department of the city courts (being the first instance courts) with an automatic right of appeal to the High Court. In…
In Denmark, as is probably the case in many other jurisdictions, in IP proceedings a case must be brought against each alleged infringer in that alleged infringer’s local jurisdiction (bailiff’s department of the local city court). In a recent decision from the Danish High Court (Eastern Division) (case reported in the Danish Legal Gazette UfR…
Like other countries, such as Australia or Germany, a “petty” patent or “utility model” can be obtained in Spain for so-called minor inventions. They present a twofold distinction with regard to “full-fledged” patents, when it comes to examining their patentability: (i) only documents disclosed in Spain form part of the state of the art; (ii)…
The Duesseldorf Court of Appeal referred in a recent decision to the commandment “You shall not lie!” – with severe consequences as to the cost risk of patent proceedings (court order of 15 April 2010 – ref. I-2 W 10/10; InstGE 12, 107 – Du sollst nicht lügen!). Under German law, the losing party has…
In appeal proceedings against a granted ex parte injunction, the Court of Appeal considered that the test whether there is an imminent threat of infringement must be based on objective criteria.. There is an objective threat of infringement if the defendant obtained a marketing authorisation and a price. The Court considered the conditional intention not…
In a global patent battle between Ajinomoto and Global Biochem Technology (GBT), a Belgian front was opened on March 25, 2008 when Ajinomoto seized more than 4 million kilos of infringing L-Lysine (a compound feed additive) produced by GBT. After unsuccessful third party opposition proceedings by GBT and its European distributors, patent litigation on the…
In this case the Court of Appeal of Lyon affirmed the first French judgement granting an interlocutory injunction to prevent imminent infringement of a patent. The President of the First Instance Court had not considered any argument relating to the validity of the patent, and decided that in summary proceedings, only the existence of the…
