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 Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in Germany expects a ruling in case 2 BvR 739/17, concerning the complaint against German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement ‘within the next few months’. An FCC spokesman has declared this in reaction to a query of this blog. Earlier this week, the FCC published the list of…
The provisions judge determined that there was a serious chance that the patent of Tomra on a self-sealing pressure release apparatus was invalid and thus did not grant a preliminary injunction to prevent marketing by Kiremko of their Strata Invicta system. Case date: 17 January 2020 Case number: C/09/580883 / KG ZA 19-941 Court: Provisions Judge of…
The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant fortification of a cross-undertaking for damages where the injunction had been discharged. Further, the Court held that even if it had jurisdiction to do so, the evidence as to Napp’s financial position did not justify fortification of the cross-undertaking. Case date: 15 April 2019 Case number:…
It’s been almost four years since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and debates started among patent specialists what consequences this would have for the UK’s role in the Unitary Patent system. Last Friday the Brexit finally became a reality and on Monday prime minister Boris Johnson gave a speech on the…
The inventor designated in a European patent has to be a human being and not a machine. That is the core message of two recent EPO refusals of patent applications in which an AI system was designated as the inventor. The EPO decisions, concerning the applications EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174, both filed in…
It has been a year since the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu & Ors[1]. However, the step may have proved to be retrograde. Background Monsanto Technology LLC (Monsanto) had a registered patent no. 214436 for Nucleotide Acid Sequence (NAS) containing the…
Today, Advocate General (AG) Mr. Giovanni Pitruzzella handed down his opinion in the referral C-673/18 (Santen). The case concerns an SPC based on a second medical use/formulation patent and stems from a referral to the CJEU made by the Paris Court of Appeal with decision of 9 October 2018 in Santen v. INPI (see here…
A dispute over a mechanical patent in the children’s toy business allows us to get a peek at the courts in Valencia, one of the latest additions to the roster of Spanish courts that have jurisdictions in patent matters, and teaches a lesson on the importance of formalities and translations in Spanish civil litigation. Case…
The patentee is not limited on appeal to defending the patent in the (limited) version pursued in the first instance, but may revert to the version as granted and to other limited versions. A declaration in the response to the nullity action that the patent is defended in a limited form has no limiting effect;…
The Spanish company Fractus sued Xiaomi and their distributors for infringement of their patent on a monopole antenna with a radiation arm that is shaped as a space-filling curve. However, the provisions judge declared that the claim of the patent should be interpreted narrowly on the basis of the prosecution history and on the basis…
