One of the remedies available to a patent holder against a patent infringer is an injunction to prevent future. Two types are generally available: a preliminary injunction and an injunction in proceedings on the merits. A preliminary injunction is a provisional measures which has to be confirmed in merits proceedings or otherwise ceases to have effect. In European patent law a (provisional) cross-border injunction is possible: a court in one European state can prohibit infringement in several other European states.
The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Eurogenerics on the basis of Lundbeck’s Belgian SPC for escitalopram, despite the fact that the SPC had been invalidated in earlier proceedings, the court found that, given the suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision invalidating the SPC, a preliminary injunction could be granted…
The Regional Court in Dusseldorf and the Polish Higher Regional Court in Gdansk have ruled in June and July 2012 that the Bolar exemption and the experimental-use exemption only apply to the testing entity and that a third party’s manufacturing and selling to the testing entity is not exempted.
On 8 June 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered an interesting decision concerning Losartan. It particularly deals with two questions: the conditions of the SPC’s paediatric extension (Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006) and the preliminary injunction as organized by Article L. 615-3 (implementing Article 9 of Directive (EC) No. 2004/48) of the French Intellectual Property Code. The US company E.I….
The interesting six-jurisdiction patent case between two of the world’s leading enzyme manufacturers, the Danish companies Danisco A/S (now part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has already been subject to earlier blogs both here and several times on EPLAW and PatLit. To recap the story briefly, Novozymes started the proceedings by applying for a preliminary…
Jurisdiction of Article 6 (1) BR against Co-Defendants [each infringing all national parts of EP] affirmed;
Jurisdiction according to Art. 31 BR affirmed for cross-border provisional injunctions despite nullity pleas
The Paris Court of Appeal clarified the conditions to be assessed by the Court in order to grant an interlocutory injunction pursuant to Article L. 615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The presentation of a product at an exhibition within Germany, constitutes use of the shape of the product (protected by trademark law) in the course of trade for advertising purposes, and this is therefore no “offering” or “putting on the market” that product in Germany . Rather, evidence must be provided which shows that the…
In a decision of 21 March 2012, the Cour d’Appel of Paris ruled on the issue of the appraisal which the French judge has to make when a request for a preliminary injunction against acts allegedly infringing a patent or an SPC is referred to him. Novartis AG is the holder and SAS Novartis Pharma is the…
For many years in Denmark, interlocutory injunction proceedings have been organized under the aegis of the bailiff’s department of the municipal courts. This has entailed a number of disadvantages, not least in relation to patent cases. In most other countries it is considered a necessary pre-requisite that the presiding judge in such proceedings has experience…
One of the most controversial provisions of the Spanish Patents Act is article 137.2, which states “Where the measures requested involve restrictions on the defendant’s industrial or commercial activity, the judge shall, when deciding with respect thereto, fix the amount of the security by which the said defendant may at any time substitute the effectiveness…
