In Medeva (C-322/10 of 24 November 2011) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had ruled that a Supplementary Protection Certificate relating to a combination of active ingredients can only be granted in view of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, if the active ingredients are “specified” in the wording of…

A recent decision of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf now confirms that a holding company cannot easily dive away under the patent infringing activities of its subsidiaries. Background Many companies are designed in the form of a group, having a holding company at the top and a number of subsidiaries which are directly or…

The Federal Court of Justice held that under the specific circumstances of the case it was likely that a service manual regarding flow meter technology had been available to third parties. The Court considered as decisive the agreement between the party supplying the manual and the recipient. According to the Court it is relevant whether…

Syngenta Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Syngenta”), a company governed by the laws of England and Wales, is the holder of European patent No. 0 382 375 entitled “Fungicides”. On 28 September 2009, it submitted to the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI; French Industrial Property Office) a request for limitation of a claim of the French designation of…

The German Federal Patent Court (FPC) has recently published its first decision (3 Ni 28/11 of 2 May 2012 “Ranibizumab”, GRUR 2013, 58) dealing with the interpretation of related CJEU Judgments “Medeva” (C-322/10) of 24 November 2011 and “University of Queensland” (C-630/10) of 25 November 2011. In the view of the FPC, the infringement test, which had been utilized by the German Federal Court of Justice in examining the condition of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation, can thus no longer be relied upon. Further, the FPC ruled that the requirement that an SPC can only be granted for active ingredients which are specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, applies likewise to products of single active ingredients and combinations of active ingredients.

by Bernward Zollner In a case called “Produktionsrückstandsentsorgung” the German Bundesgerichtshof has discussed a case in which the claim of the litigious patent had been amended and narrowed with respect to the scope of protection after the judgment of the appeal court had been handed down. The appeal court therefore, could not have discussed the…

The Court decided it has jurisdiction in preliminary proceedings in respect of the alleged unlawful act by a Dutch company, consisting of facilitating – as the holder of a marketing authorization – its Portuguese fellow subsidiary to infringe the Portuguese part of a European patent and corresponding SPC in Portugal, based on Article 31 EC…

The Polish Supreme Administrative Court invalidated a decision of the Polish Patent Office in which it refused to grant a patent for an invention related to digital electronics. The court held that the patentability requirements under Polish patent law, including the technical character of an invention, correspond to the patentability requirements specified in the European…

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the patentability requirements used by the Polish Patent Office should be construed in compliance with the patentability requirements provided in the European Patent Convention (EPC), and held that the technical character of a computer implemented invention should be examined by applying a liberal interpretation of the patentability requirements adopted…

The following summarises another interesting decision for the rejuvenated Patents County Court which is continuing to flourish as a forum for smaller intellectual property disputes of all kinds. Merck is the proprietor of European Patent (EP (UK) 1 480 717) which, in relation to the product montelukast (Singulair, used for the treatment of adult and…