By Christian Dekoninck, Crowell & Moring The Brussels Court of Appeal has clarified in a recent decision that a judge, who has previously ruled on a preliminary injunction in a patent case, may be part of the court deciding on the merits relating to the same patent. The Court of Appeal held that there is no…
The European patent community and especially the people involved in the preparation of the Unified Patent Court were stirred up in March 2015 by an action launched before the Belgian Constitutional Court. On 10 March 2015 the Belgian non for profit association ESOMA (European Software Market Association) had launched a nullity action against the Belgian…
By Jan-Diederik Lindemans, Crowell & Moring 7 of the IP Enforcement Directive (measures for preserving evidence) was implemented in Belgium in Article 1369bis/1 et seq. of the Belgian Judicial Code. These ex parte proceedings, called (counterfeit) search and seizure proceedings, allow the competent Belgian court to grant the holder of an intellectual property right not…
This question has been on the minds of many European IP litigation stakeholders since January 26, 2015. On that date, the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in United Video Properties v. Telenet referred some preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) regarding the (in)compatibility of Belgium’s system of capped recovery…
In its decision of 1 December 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal clarified the scope of seizure measures that can be ordered in the context of a counterfeit seizure (“saisie-contrefaçon”). The Court confirmed that no general injunction can be obtained on the basis of these ex parte proceedings. This case relates to the co-irbesartan litigation…
As already described in a previous blog entry the Belgian Supreme Court nullified a decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal granting a descriptive seizure (“beschrijvend beslag”; “saisie-description”) on the presumption of validity of (European) patents. The written decision of the Supreme Court is now available (link). The Supreme Court has followed the advice of…
1. Introduction Preliminary injunction (“PI”) and seizure proceedings are powerful weapons in the hands of patentees in Belgium. Often, the success of a product launch and the outcome of a patent dispute will in practice be determined by a PI or seizure that prevents or ceases market entry by the alleged infringer. In the context of…
PI proceedings have always been a powerful weapon for patentees in Belgium. In such proceedings before the President of the Commercial Court a full legal analysis of the parties’ rights cannot be made. The President will only prima facie asses the parties’ rights and claims. As a result, invalidity arguments are not taken into account given…
On 2 April 2014 the parliamentary committee Foreign Affairs of the Belgian House of Representatives voted in favor of the ratification of the UPC agreement. The vote in plenary session is planned for the week of 22 April 2014, but should be no more than a formality. This means that after Austria and France, Belgium…
The Court of Appeal of Liège confirmed the President of the Commercial Court’s finding that the appellant had committed patent infringement, and ordered the reimbursement of costs of the saisie-contrefaçon (seizure of evidence), which were not considered damages but as procedural costs. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case…
