Patent claims, and therewith infringement, can get lost in translation. The Dutch first instance court limited a patent’s scope of protection based on the Dutch translation of the claims. The Court of Appeal saw it differently. A thorough review of the translation of the claims remains necessary to avoid unwanted discussions on claim interpretation. To…
On 13 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the Munich Local Division’s decision in SES v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024) that a preliminary injunction should be refused on the basis that there was not sufficient certainty that certain models of Hanshow’s electronic label products infringe SES’ patent. SES is the registered proprietor of the…
On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…
Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou). The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…
As readers will be well aware, one of the points on which the courts of various European countries diverge, is whether or not the prosecution history of the patent at hand may be taken into account to interpret its scope of protection. For example, the UK Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment of 12 July…
The Hatch-Waxman Act allows the FDA to permit a generic version of a branded product, which is partially patent protected, to come to market if the generic manufacturer “carves out” the patent-protected indication from its label. The scope of protection from a finding of induced infringement afforded to generic manufacturers by this “skinny label” provision…
As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal. The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement. This second part considers the decision relating to…
On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in the Court of Appeal. If that turns out to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others is a substantial judgment to mark this departure. In this case…
In China, a patent owner’s statements made during prosecution or invalidation may give rise to prosecution history estoppel (or prosecution disclaimer), which precludes the patent owner from recapturing subject matter that was relinquished during prosecution or invalidation in subsequent infringement actions. To invoke the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, such statements must constitute a clear and…
A Markush claim is a type of claim commonly used in chemical and pharmaceutical fields. On December 20, 2017, in Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd, (“Daiichi Sankyo Case”), the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) resolved a long standing-split among Chinese courts regarding the interpretation and amendment of Markush…
