The gentle reader of this blog knows that on January 1, 2012 the new Federal Patent Court will take up work in Switzerland. As Switzerland’s court of first instance in matters dealing with patents, the Federal Patent Court will rule on civil-law disputes concerning patents. It will rule, for instance, on litigation over patent validity…
Part 1 of the drama with the title “You Shall not Lie” is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam. It appeared to me that the potential consequences of this decision justify a further post on this matter. Or could you imagine to go to jail just…
Vetrotech Saint-Gobain (International) (hereinafter referred to as “Vetrotech”) is the holder of European patent No. 0 620 781 designating France, filed on 5 August 1993 and granted on 19 May 1999, entitled “Light-transparent heat-protection element”, and concerning the field of fire-protection glass and its manufacturing process. Suspecting Interver Sécurité (hereinafter referred to as “Interver”) of manufacturing and marketing in France the glass…
by Miriam Büttner This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent infringement litigation (“You shall not lie!” – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings). Court fees are fixed on the…
As previously report on this blog (29 June 2011), on 20 June 2011 Floyd J. granted an ex parte interim injunction, sometimes called a “temporary restraining order” preventing Teva UK Limited (and two distributors, “Phoneix” and “AAH”) from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying its generic atorvastatin product (sold by Pfizer under the brand…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a new prior art document D5 and argued lack of novelty over D5 or lack of inventive step over the combination…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based on different patents and to what extent the plaintiff may choose to use a patent at a later stage. A later action…
In a recent decision of 16 June 2011 the German Bundesgerichtshof has cancelled a decision of the German Bundespatentgericht because the Bundespatentgericht had not sufficiently respected the (constitutional) right of one of the parties to a fair hear-ing (“Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs”). At the Bundespatentgericht the parties had discussed the validity of a German utility…
The Antwerp Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of the Spanish pharmaceutical company Almirall against Teva Pharma Belgium (Teva) relating to the generic ebastin. It confirmed the decision of the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, although the Court of Appeal based its decision on other grounds. As discussed in a previous post, Almirall started…
To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…
