Concerns that inexperienced judges will do unpredictable or crazy things at the Unified Patent Court are exaggerated, according to Bird & Bird partner Wouter Pors. Last month he gave a lecture to future UPC judges at the Budapest Training Centre as part of a week of training on the issue of infringement. He wrote this…
In T 2130/11 the Board held that a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03 if it was required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims.
The €80 opt-out fee for the Unified Patent Court (UPC) as proposed by the Preparatory Committee will be a very heavy burden for hard-pressed patent departments. They are being asked to pay a significant fee for NOT using the new system. ’How perverse can this be?’ says Bristows partner Alan Johnson in answer to questions…
In a recent Supreme Court decision from Denmark (Dansk Mink Papir vs. Jasopels A/S), the Supreme Court rendered a decision which could mark the inauguration of a more holistic approach by Danish courts in their assessment of patent protective scope. The invention concerned a so-called pelt bag developed by Dansk Mink Papir which had also…
In an important change of position and influenced by the CJEU’s rejection of the Spanish challenge, Italy has announced it wants to join the enhanced cooperation within the European Union to create the Unitary Patent. This has been reported by various sources. According to the website of the Società Italiana Brevetti (SIB), Undersecretary Simona Vicari…
On 26 March 2015 the Landgericht Düsseldorf rendered a judgment granting an injunction based on the finding of infringement of an SEP by sales of smartphones implementing NFC – Near Field Communication according to an ETSI standard (France Brevet vs. HTC – Landgericht Düsseldorf 4b O 140/13). Defendant’s FRAND-defense was rejected by the Court because…
In light of a binding prior Federal Circuit decision narrowly construing a key claim term in a patent relating to type of mechanically-resistant steel sheet, the federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, properly invalidated the first 23 claims of a reissue patent as impermissibly broader than the original claims, but the court erred in invalidating…
On 15 October 2014 the Spanish Supreme Court confirmed its earlier rulings on two issues: after an IP right has been found invalid in first instance but the Court of Appeal overturns this decision because it disagrees with the argument that was the basis for invalidity in first instance, (how) should the Court of Appeal…
At a tradeshow in Düsseldorf the Defendant co-organized a so called “Turkish Pavilion” featuring several companies of the Turkish region “Samsun”. The Court held that this role of the Defendant was sufficient to be held liable for patent infringement, even where the Defendant itself did not manufacture or sell the products. Exhibiting at the tradeshow…
The federal district court in Camden, New Jersey, did not err in finding U.S. Patent No. 7,524,834 (“the ‘834 patent”) held by AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca AB (“AstraZeneca”) and asserted against Breath Limited, Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., Sandoz Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, the “defendants”), invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the…
