As we are approaching the holiday season, Sweden has a special gift for SPC applicants and proprietors. This comes in the wake of the recent decision PMÄ 7804-24 of November 11, 2024, in which the Swedish Patent and Market Court endorsed a change of practice regarding the manner in which the SPC term is calculated….

When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but rather determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must…

In a second case between DexCom and Abbott, DexCom claimed against Abbott for infringement of a divisional patent by its glucose monitoring system. However, Abbott, in a similar fashion as with the parent patent, also counterclaimed for revocation of the divisional patent. Case date: 31 July 2024 Case number: CFI 233/2023547520/20232178/2024 Court: UPC Local divisions of the…

In a long awaited, but timely decision the Düsseldorf local division has the honour to be the first to decide an infringement case before the UPC. Indeed, the court lived up to its promise to deliver a decision in about 1 year. The decision itself, where the patent was found invalid, but an auxiliary request…

Following up on Thorsten’s blog post yesterday, I report on the second day of the Oxviews 9th Intellectual Property and Competition Forum, which took place in the Justizpalast in Munich on 19 June. This impressive building deserves the name Palast (in English “Palace”), and was a fitting venue for this meeting of thought leaders in…

As most readers will be well aware, one of the hottest topics in the patent world is the broadening of the Bolar provision envisaged in the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union code relating to medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/83/EC and Directive…

There are now three interesting developments, albeit in quite different areas, which have in common the effort to avoid stepping on banana skins on the path towards a more unified patent system. The first one, published last week, was a decision by the Court of Appeal (CoA) itself, which took the opportunity to clarify that…

In a revocation action the patent may be amended by the patent proprietor. According to Rule 30 RoP this should be done with an application; for subsequent amendments the explicit approval of the court should be sought. In the present case the patent proprietor tried to introduce amendments that had also been filed in another…

In accordance with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency as well as a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties, which must be considered in the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure pursuant to Article 41(3) UPCA, the proceedings are not required to be stayed under Rule 311.1, first sentence RoP,…