by Max v. Rospatt In a recent decision the Landgericht Duesseldorf (4a O 277/10 – Pramipexol) issued a preliminary injunction against a generic company before the generic was listed in one of the usual publications (Rote Liste, Lauer Taxe etc.). Plaintiff asserted infringing marketing activities solely based on information obtained from an independent market research…
Who may bring an action for patent revocation? Such is the fundamental question which has been submitted to the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in a case whose factual circumstances made it very interesting. On 13 September 2010, Omnipharm Limited served a summons on Merial to appear before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris to…
In this case the claimant filed an application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), however the application was refused by the Lithuanian patent office. Appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court referred the question whether the six-month period for application for an SPC begins on the date of granting Community marketing authorization, or…
On 15 March 2011, in a dispute opposing the companies E.I Du Pont de Nemours and Merck and companies Mylan and Qualimed, the Cour d’Appel of Paris confirmed the order handed down on 12 February 2010 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, subject-matter of a previous post. The American company E.I. Du Pont de…
Co-author Christiaen Dekoninck. Noteworthy decision on the balance of interests within the framework of preliminary injunction proceedings: Antwerp Court refuses to issue a preliminary injunction because the patent holder could have started accelerated proceedings on the merits earlier. By a decision of 15 March 2011, the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed the claims…
The German Patent Act (sec. 145) provides for a special limitation of further actions on account of the same or similar act based on different patents. Such actions shall only be admissible if the plaintiff was not in a position to assert a patent in an earlier suit without his own fault. The landmark decision…
Daiichi Sankyo (hereinafter referred to as “Daiichi”) was the holder, for a drug whose active principle was pravastatine, of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) granted on 26 August 1992 which expired on 10 August 2006. This company claimed that Sandoz had, since July 2006, manufactured and put on the French market a generic drug of pravastatine, thereby infringing the exclusive…
While in the past the German courts generally presumed that exposing a product on a trade fair constituted an infringing offer and, hence, a danger of repetition, the District Court of Mannheim recently raised the burden of demonstration and proof for patent owners. Following the (vague) reasoning of the Federal Supreme Court in a trademark…
According to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the envisaged Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS) is not compatible with the law of the European Union. The main debate is about the influence of the ECJ in patent matters. However, the patent communities in the Member States of the European Union do not seem to be keen on extending the ECJ’s jurisdiction in patent matters and patent practitioners in EPC member states that are not members of the EU are still less.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now issued its long awaited Opinion 1/09 on the draft agreement concerning the creation of a unified patent litigation system (UPLS). As is well known, this draft agreement drew on many provisions introduced for the first time by the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and…
