The patent world is holding its breath in expectation of the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) on the complaint that was filed last year against ratification of the UPCA. The judgment is even more crucial as the UK is preparing for Brexit and once it has left the European Union, this will…
The FCJ confirmed that, when formulating the problem as a starting point for assessing inventive step, it is not permissible to narrow the problem by referring to prior art not cited in the patent. The patent relates to a sound generator, in particular for parking assistance systems for vehicles. The sound generator is equipped with…
A catalog published at a trade conference by one of the inventors of U.S. Patent 8,714,977 (the “’977 patent) was publicly accessible to the dental industry in March 2003, and therefore was prior art, with properly corroborated evidence, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a precedential opinion. The Federal…
A recent study by two eminent scholars from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI) on „The Impact of Brexit on Unitary Patent Protection and its Court“, which is available here, casts significant doubts whether it will be possible for the United Kingdom to stay in the UPC Agreement after the UK has…
This case concerns the question of whether, and under what conditions, a supplier of infringing products who is located abroad can be held liable for infringement of the German patent for acts committed abroad. The FCJ held that the supplier may be liable if he was aware or should have been aware of the fact…
One of the points sometimes debated in patent cases is the date when a claim for patent infringement becomes “time-barred” (i.e. the date on which it “prescribes”). The traditional position adopted by the courts in countries like Germany and Spain is that in the case of continuing acts of infringement, the time-barred period (e.g. 5…
AstraZeneca had filed an application for interim relief based on two patents, DK/EP 1250138 T4 (“EP 138”) and DK/EP 2266573 T3 (“EP 573”) against Sandoz, which conceded that to the extent that the patents were valid, the Sandoz product “Fulvestrant Sandoz” infringed upon the two patents. Sandoz took the position, however, that the patents should…
To ensure you don’t miss out on interesting IP law developments reported on our other IP blogs, we will, on a regular basis, provide you with an overview of the top 3 most-read posts from each of our IP law blogs. Here are the top posts from June, July and August. Top 3 Kluwer Copyright…
In a case concerning a patent relating to methods of transferring component tape information to a component mounting machine, the Federal Court of Justice held that when inventive step is assessed it is of the utmost importance to consider all aspects of the claimed subject-matter and in particular effects and advantages of these aspects in…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Texas district court’s ruling that Verizon Wireless did not infringe on Barkan Wireless’ patent despite disagreeing with the lower court’s construction of a term recited in each independent claim of the patent. Barkan Wireless had appealed the district court’s construction of the term “Access…
