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.
In a court order of 11 May 2010, the President of the Court of First Instance of Brussels refused a plaintiff to have indirect access to confidential information in the possession of a court-appointed expert through foreign patent infringement proceedings. The court appointed expert had obtained this confidential information while executing a counterfeit seizure, authorized by the…
German courts (and German attorneys) have been quite creative to improve the position of the patentee in litigation in the past. Last year the Olanzapine- decision of the Appeals Court in Düsseldorf, which rendered a preliminary injunction although the patent had been previously nullified by the Federal Patent Court, has caused a sensation in the…
On the basis of a use patent, Aventis filed for interim relief against Hospira at the Bailiff’s Court (Enforcement court) at Lyngby City Court in Denmark. The claim was based on DK/EP 0593656 and the defence raised by Hospira was invalidity of the invoked right.
During the past 9 months in Denmark, the pharmaceuticals manufacturer and patentee, H. Lundbeck A/S, has obtained two interlocutory injunctions in Denmark against wholesalers marketing generic versions of Escitalopram. In both cases H. Lundbeck A/S argued successfully that the patent-in-suit fulfilled the conditions of the Danish Patents Act § 64a (similar to the Art 35…
In this case the Commercial Court lifts an ex parte preliminary injunction against the launch of several generics of Pramipexol after an inter partes hearing. The ex parte decision was grounded on a Supplementary Protection Certificate based on a patent granted under the 1929 Patents Act. One of the claims of the patent was construed…
The Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed Merck’s claim for injunctive relief against Teva, ruling that Teva’s montelukast-based generic medicines do not infringe Merck’s European patent (EP 0 737 186) with respect to an improved process for preparation of the active ingredient montelukast, either literally or by equivalents. A full summary of this case has been published…
The German Federal Supreme Court decided that a forwarder has no procedural obligation to provide essential information for an eligible denial. Hence, a forwarder can plead ignorance concerning the accordance of the transported good with technical teaching of the claimed invention. A forwarder has no general auditing duty concerning infringement of industrial property rights by…
On 30 July 2009, the Commercial Court of Granada ordered an ex parte preliminary injunction against two companies that had obtained authorisation to market generics of sustained-release pharmaceutical compositions of Fluvastatin in Spain. Interestingly, on 27 April 2009, Commercial Court number 3 of Madrid had rejected a request for a preliminary injunction against other companies…
The Barcelona Court of Appeal confirmed a preliminary injunction ordered by Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona on 9 June 2008 preventing the launch of several generics of Atorvastatin. One of the main arguments raised by the defendants in their appeal was that the company that had filed the application for a preliminary injunction did…
This is the first case in the Netherlands in which a patentee, whose patent was nullified in first instance in proceedings on the merits, requested a prohibition of infringement of this patent in preliminary injunction proceedings pending appeal of the first instance merits decision. The Preliminary Injunction Judge of the Court dismissed the request as…
