The Court of Appeal has held that the skilled person (which can be a team of individuals) may vary depending on the question in issue (e.g. obviousness, novelty, sufficiency or construction). The patents in suit taught the use of marine Controlled Source Electromagnetic (“CSEM”) surveying to locate oil or gas. For the purposes of sufficiency…
In this case the Supreme Court affirmed that the transfer of a computer program could be regarded as an act of indirect patent infringement. Although the commissioned research and development of the program was covered by the experimental use/research exemption, a majority of three judges held that the transfer of the results of such research…
This case concerned the issue of patentability. The Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO) refused a patent application on the grounds that the invention only consisted in an automation of a known process. This DKPTO decision was appealed before the High Court and subsequently brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High…
The Court of Appeal held that AGA’s patent was not infringed by Occlutech in a case of septal occlusion devices, which feature braided metal strands and have a collapsed configuration for delivery through a channel in a patient’s body.Occlutech’s devices, which feature strands that are welded at one end of the device were found to…
In this case, the Court of Appeal of Paris affirmed a judgement of the Court of First Instance of Paris holding that a product “may not acquire novelty simply because it is prepared in a purer form”. The Court decided that “the parameters that are not inherent to the chemical compound itself, but rather are…
Questions submitted to the Enlarged Board. During opposition the Proprietor announced that it wanted a correction of the decision to grant from the examining division. The opposition division decided to stay proceedings and the Opponent appealed the decision to stay. The Board submitted questions to the Enlarged Board, asking (1) whether a request for correction…
The General Court upheld, for the most part, the decision of the European Commission in AstraZeneca. The Court held that AstraZeneca infringed Article 82 EC (prohibition of abuse of a dominant market position) in so far as AstraZeneca requested the registration of Losec capsules market authorisations in Norway and Denmark. The Court further held that…
In appeal proceedings against a granted ex parte injunction, the Court of Appeal considered that the test whether there is an imminent threat of infringement must be based on objective criteria.. There is an objective threat of infringement if the defendant obtained a marketing authorisation and a price. The Court considered the conditional intention not…
Claim 1 of the opposed patent had a limitation to a range of values with a lower bound that was slightly higher than disclosed in the priority document. The Board refused to recognize priority. As the priority document was prior art, the claim lacked novelty. The proprietor filed an auxiliary request wherein protection at the…
The European Court of Justice held that Article 9 of the Biotech Directive (98/44/EC) does not confer patent protection to genetic information that does not (anymore) perform its function for which it is patented (in the case at hand the DNA present in soy meal). In addition, the Court held that Article 9 Directive provides…
