Procedure

Amendments, EPC, France, Procedure

(Véron & Associés)/

By 24 similar decisions rendered on 14 April 2010, the Cour d’Appel of Paris held that new Article L. 614-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code, implementing the London Agreement, applies not only to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published after 1 May 2008 but also to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published before 1 May 2008. One of these decisions is here summarized.

Biologics, Procedure, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

The torrent of UK cases concerning applications for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) shows no sign of abating. Following the reference from the Court of Appeal in June to the CJEU in Medeva’s SPC Applications regarding the scope of the SPC Regulation (see previous post), the issue of SPCs for combination products has arisen again in…

France, Inventive step, Opposition, Procedure, Sufficiency of disclosure, Validity

(Véron & Associés)/

A 1 July 2009 decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris illustrates how the French courts proceed when they are seised of a nullity claim of the French designation of a European patent against which opposition may be filed or opposition proceedings are pending.

Procedure, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

Council Regulation 469/2009 (the “SPC Regulation”) governs the grant of supplementary protection certificates in the EU. Core to its interpretation are Articles 1, 3, 4 and 5. Most pertinently, Article 3 provides that an SPC shall be granted if, among other things and in the relevant member state, (a) the product is protected by a…

Germany, Procedure

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has recently made clear that every court has to take into account preceding decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) and of courts of other contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC) if these decisions essentially concern the same questions. Although there is no principle of precedence in…

Italy, Procedure, Revocation

(Trevisan & Cuonzo)/

The Court of Appeal of Milan established a principle whereby named inventors must be called in revocation actions and, if they are not, proceedings may not reach the stage of decision. This principle, which may sound strange to practitioners of other jurisdictions, is based on Art. 122, paragraph 4, of the Italian IP Code, according…

France, Procedure

(Véron & Associés)/ /1 Comment

In its 3 March 2010 decision, the Cour d’Appel of Paris, Division 5, Chamber 1, reversing the decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris on this question, held that the authorisation to carry out a saisie-contrefaçon may be requested and obtained even after expiry of the patent, since the saisie-contrefaçon is intended to collect evidence of infringing acts committed prior to the patent expiry. This decision relating to the French saisie-contrefaçon will certainly be of interest to practitioners of other Member States of the European Union since Article 7 of EC Directive 2004/48, which had to be implemented into national laws before 29 April 2006, requires the Member States of the European Union to introduce into their national law “measures for preserving evidence” using as models the French saisie-contrefaçon and the Anton Piller order. This decision which finds no contradiction in Article 7 of EC Directive 2004/48 and which is essentially based on the evidential nature of the saisie-contrefaçon , may therefore be extended to the “measures for preserving evidence” set up into the laws of the different Member States of the European Union.