Read all the (latest) blogs from:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, EPC, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America
The Unitary Patent system adds to territorial fragmentation of patent law in Europe, rather than consolidating it, by leaving aside non-participating EU Member States. Also, it is based on rules in the Brussels I bis Regulation (BR) and the Unifed Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) which are not consistent, according to Dr. Michael C.A. Kant, expert…
Activities of Patent assertion entities (PAEs) in Europe are increasing dramatically and are encouraged by the Rules of Procedure of the upcoming Unified Patent Court, especially the possibility to obtain an EU wide injunction. This is argued by Intellectual Property 2 Innovate (IP2I), a coalition made up with nine companies ‘that create innovative products and…
In Germany, the winning party is able to recover a significant amount of its costs from the losing party. This cost reimbursement, which is based on a statutory fee schedule, depends on the value of the case. The amount of recoverable fees can be quite significant; the maximum in infringement proceedings would be around slightly…
On 17 June 2016 the Maritime and Commercial court declared AstraZeneca’s patent DK/EP 0 907 364 invalid, rendering the preliminary injunctions granted against Teva and a number of other competitors void as a result. The issue of damages was set a side for separate adjudication and the Maritime and Commercial court delivered its judgement on…
UK prime minister Theresa May’s decision to call early general elections for 8 June 2017 could spell trouble for the Unitary Patent system, as it may delay the UK’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement. Nobody said the creation of a new patent system covering all EU member states was going to be easy….
Given the furore surrounding Birss J’s decision on the non-technical issues in Unwired Planet v Huawei earlier this month, which included the first determination of FRAND terms by an English Court (reported on by my colleague Rachael here), it would have been easy to miss the first appellate Court judgment on the related technical issues…
The federal district court in Tyler, Texas, correctly denied Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.’s (“Core Wireless’s”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple infringed a claim of a Core Wireless patent directed to a means for sending packet data from a mobile station such as a cellular telephone to a cellular system or…
by Nicholas Round At the start of this month, the UK Supreme Court took a break from its recent post-Brexit work interpreting (and developing) constitutional principles to hear an intellectual property matter. This rare Supreme court foray for a patent produced a ripple of excitement across the UK IP litigation community not least because (uniquely…
In a significant departure from precedent, the Full Federal Court of Australia held in Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 54 (Coretell) that the entitlement to relief for infringement of an innovation patent begins from the date of the grant of the patent and not the application’s date of filing….
by Rachael Cartwright On 5 April 2017, Mr Justice Birss handed down his highly anticipated, lengthy and potentially controversial judgment on the FRAND licensing and competition law aspects of the long running Unwired Planet patent saga. Running at 163 pages, and a mere 807 paragraphs, the judgment sets out the history and fundamental principles of…
