In most systems, a patent is valid for 20 years from the filing date of the patent application. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity but no patent is safe from being challenged and declared (partially) invalid by national courts or, in the case of European patents, revoked by the European Patent Office. Often, a claim of invalidity of a patent is a reaction to an action of the patentee, in particular an infringement action.
What happens in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system, if – during pending infringements proceedings – the nullity court declares the patent partly invalid? The patentee can amend its infringement action accordingly. The infringement action is then based on the patent claim as amended by the nullity court, and not on the patent claim as initially…
Denmark, as one of only a very few countries in the Western world, has no specialty patents court(s) for first instance PI proceedings. Instead, an application for a PI is heard by the bailiff’s department of the city courts (being the first instance courts) with an automatic right of appeal to the High Court. In…
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Novartis’ patent for ophthalmically compatible extended wear contact lenses was invalid for insufficiency. The Court of Appeal held that the patent does not teach which materials described in the specification are suitable for extended wear lenses, nor does the patent enable the skilled person to…
The District Court of The Hague declares the Dutch part of Bayer’s European Patent covering Anti-TNF alpha human monoclonal antibodies invalid. The Court considers that the patent covers high affinity antibodies. However, the Court finds that such type of antibodies is not sufficiently disclosed in the patent specification, and therefore invalidates the patent as a…
The Thessaloniki Court of Appeal held in nullity proceedings that the patent, covering ornamental light devices, lacked both novelty and inventive step. The patented subject matter was found to be known in the market and circulating in trade prior to the date of filing the application for patent protection. A full summary of this case…
The new French law implementing the London Protocol is immediately applicable, even to European patents granted before the entry into force of this new law. The Court held that the new law was procedural and should, as such, be enforced immediately with retroactive effect. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer…
When challenging the validity of a patent, a decision needs to be made early on as to grounds on which to rely. When it comes to allegations of anticipation and obviousness, the challenger and its advisers will need to consider whether to rely or just one or two prior art citations or to include a…
In this blog I report about how the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has recently eliminated some potential for conflicting decisions in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system. The separation of infringement and invalidity proceedings is the basis for what we call the “mouse and elephant strategy”. In the infringement proceedings the patentee tries to establish a scope of…
In the 30 June 2010 decision, the Cour d’Appel of Paris stated how the novelty of an invention, namely a pharmaceutical compound having a high degree of purity, should be assessed.
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…
