Infringement is unauthorized application of the claimed invention, e.g. by trading in a product that falls within the scope of the claims of a patent. Actively inducing, encouraging or materially contributing to the infringing activity may – in some jurisdictions – also constitute indirect infringement. Infringement by inducement and contributory infringement are two types of indirect patent infringement, recognized in the U.S. In Europe indirect infringement generally relates to the (offer to) supply a means essential to the invention.
If replacement of a worn-out component during the lifespan of a patented combination product is expected in the relevant trade circles, this will form part of the intended and thus admissible use, unless the technical effect of the invention is reflected in such component. Otherwise replacement generally constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the component’s significance…
The amount of its profit the infringer will have to pay to the patentee as damages is calculated solely based on the profit earned by use of the intellectual property right. To determine this profit it must be assessed if, and to what extent this profit was due either to the invention’s technical features embodied…
The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…
by Bernward Zollner The German law on indirect patent infringement is rather strict. Particular means which are being supplied to third parties relate to an essential element of the in-vention if they are mentioned in the patent claim. In a decision from May 2004 called “Flügelradzähler” the Bundesgerichtshof has stated that the mere exist-ence of…
The French Supreme Court specified the rules for the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the assessment of infringement of a process patent, holding that a patented process is considered to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalence when both means have the same function in order to obtain the same result as the…
August and September are traditionally vacation months in the English Courts although the Patents Court can and often does sit in September. As a result of this, not many judgments are handed down in these months. However on 5th September 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down an important and very interesting decision in the…
by Miriam Büttner As promised by my colleague, Rüdiger Pansch (please see his post on “Munich Appellate Court on Making vs. Repair” dated 28 October 2011 and the other earlier Blogs cited therein) we are keeping you updated on what is going on at the IBC-front. The German Federal Supreme Court rendered a judgment on…
The Court of Justice ruled that claims against different companies located in different Member States marketing the same product regarding infringement of a a European patent in one jurisdiction were so closely connected that they may be decided jointly to prevent irreconcilable judgments in the sense of Art. 6(1) EC 44/2001. In the present circumstances,…
The Supreme Court held that the patent claiming a device to be mounted on ovens used to industrially drain pasta was infringed by application of the doctrine of equivalence. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant’s machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court sanctioned the appeal court’s decision that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied. Click here for the full text of…
