Procedure Archives - Page 14 of 27

Damages, Enforcement, France, Injunction, Procedure

Civil liability because of the enforcement of a preliminary injunction: the priority question on constitutionality

Pierre Véron (Véron & Associés)/October 24, 2012

Thanks to the constitutional revision of 23 July 2008 (which created Article 61-1 and amended Article 62 of the French Constitution), a new procedure to control the constitutionality of laws was introduced into French law, which came into force on 1st March 2010: the “priority question on constitutionality” (“question prioritaire de constitutionnalité”). Before this reform, the constitutionality could only be verified…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, Procedure

Lifting the fog

Miquel Montañá (Clifford Chance)/October 23, 2012March 18, 2017

One of the remedies available to intellectual property owners introduced by what is known as the Enforcement Directive was the publication of the judgment where infringement is declared. This remedy was already foreseen in article 63 of the 1986 Spanish Patents Act, which includes among the remedies available to the patent owner, inter alia, “the…

Case Law, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Ireland, Novelty, Procedure

I Medinol Ltd v. Abbott Ireland and Abbot Vascular International BCBA & Others, High Court, Commercial List Dublin (High Court, Commercial List Dublin), 10 March 2011

Shane O'Brien (Mccann Fitzgerald)/October 15, 2012

Applying a purposive construction of the claims the Court found no infringement similar to the conclusion in prior parallel proceedings between the parties in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. The issue of added matter was left to be addressed in a separate judgment. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, European Union, Procedure

EU Patent Makes Next Step – But Whereto? Success or Abyss?

Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle)/October 12, 2012March 20, 2017

On 27 September 2012, a new consolidated version of the Draft Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (Document 14268/12) was (finally) published. The consolidated text includes some of the amendments agreed upon on 5 December 2011 as well as on the 29/30 June 2012 EU Council summit, and also presents further amendments and quite a…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, Denmark, European Union, Procedure

UPC Rules of Procedure – Will they address concerns of small-country SMEs?

Anders Valentin (Bugge Valentin)/October 10, 2012March 20, 2017 /1 Comment

In the wake of the UPC Agreement having been entered into under the Danish presidency, there was widespread euphoria about the many, potentially positive, aspects of Danish SME litigants being able to save substantial costs under the envisaged UPC regime. The Danish press abounded in positive reviews put forward by politicians and industry representatives alike,…

Damages, Procedure, United Kingdom

Costs firmly capped in the PCC

Brian Cordery (Bristows)/October 3, 2012

After widespread reform in late 2010 (previously reported here), the Patents County Court (the “PCC”) is increasingly becoming a court of choice in intellectual property matters in England and Wales, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”). Part of the revamp included introducing a cap on costs (provided by CPR rules 45.41 – 45.43). In…

Case Law, EPC, Procedure

T936/09, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 1 March 2012

Lars de Haas (V.O.)/September 27, 2012

The Board, exercising its power under Article 12(4) RPBA, decided not to admit the patent proprietor’s (appellant) main request in appeal, because he did not at all respond in substance to the opposition in first instance, but had merely stated to be interested in maintaining the patent as granted and that it would not reply…

Case Law, EPC, Procedure

T1178/08, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 9 May 2012

Lars de Haas (V.O.)/September 13, 2012

The Board refused to admit the only set of claims, with an added limitation, filed in the patentee’s grounds of appeal. In the Board’s view, the applicant should have submitted the amended claims in first-instance proceedings. In view thereof, the Board exercised its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA by not admitting the claims. Click here …

Amendments, Case Law, EPC, Procedure

Request to correct patent, European Patent Office (EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal), 23 July 2012

Ferry van Looijengoed/September 13, 2012

Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor’s request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com

Procedure, Switzerland

Swiss Federal Patent Court adopts Dusseldorf rules for preliminary taking of evidence

Simon Holzer (MLL Legal Ltd.)/September 10, 2012March 20, 2017

In a decision dated 14 June 2012, the Swiss Federal Patent Court granted a patent holder’s request for preliminary taking of evidence by means of the creation of a precise description of an allegedly infringing process. The Patent Court ordered that the description shall be carried out at defendant’s premises by a technically trained judge…