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…
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…
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 …
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
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…
The next wave of U.S. patent reform changes embodied in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act takes effect on September 16, 2012. The following is a list of some key changes that may impact granted, pending and new U.S. patent portfolios.
On 8 June 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered an interesting decision concerning Losartan. It particularly deals with two questions: the conditions of the SPC’s paediatric extension (Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006) and the preliminary injunction as organized by Article L. 615-3 (implementing Article 9 of Directive (EC) No. 2004/48) of the French Intellectual Property Code. The US company E.I….
The pan-European litigation between Danish companies Danisco A/S (today a part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has been extensively reported in posts on this blog (12/08/2011; 21/09/2011; 10/01/2012; 09/07/2012; 03/08/2012). The litigation has involved Novozymes’ European Patent EP 1 804 592 B1 on the manufacture of certain enzyme-containing animal food pellets. In a decision announced…
On 30 July 2012, Commercial Court number 5 of Barcelona handed down an interesting decision that has brought again to the fore the legality of so-called “preparatory acts” (in particular, obtaining marketing authorisation and price). The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: Merck Sharpe & Dohme (“MSD”) owns a Supplementary Protection Certificate…
The Court of Justice ruled that claims against different companies located in different Member States marketing the same product regarding infringement of a a European patent in one jurisdiction were so closely connected that they may be decided jointly to prevent irreconcilable judgments in the sense of Art. 6(1) EC 44/2001. In the present circumstances,…
