The Oslo District Court held that the expired Norwegian patent 306452 (“452 Patent”) was invalid due to lack of inventive step, which implied that its supplementary protection certificate SPC014 was invalid as well. The court also found the 176 Patent invalid. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
Ukraine has always been the subject of interest of innovators and generic manufacturers trying to maximize profits from selling their medicines, and ordinary consumers who just want to recover from any diseases. Being a developing country [1]According to ISI research, effective from 1 January till 31 December 2015 http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/81-developing Ukraine should make every effort just…
Please click here to find US patent cases from the the U.S. Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals with a detailed summary of each case. Recently added from our US IP Law Daily service: Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, United States Court…
The possibility to bifurcate proceedings is a concern to many potential users of the future Unified Patent Court (UPC). Proceedings in Germany, in which infringement decisions may be rendered long before a judgment is given on the validity of a patent, serve as an alarming example. Moreover, bifurcation is said to be attractive to patent…
The new long arm jurisdiction provision in the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is one of the most remarkable elements of the Unitary Patent (UP) package, according to French lawyer and IP specialist Pierre Véron. Pierre Véron and Thomas Cottier of Bern University are the authors of the renowned Concise International and European IP Law, a…
by Stephan Disser The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) has just issued its written decision in the case “Repaglinid” (X ZR 128/09). As far as can be seen, the decision is not yet available on the FCJ’s website www.bundesgerichtshof.de. The FCJ rejected the patent proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Patent Court…
We are delighted to announce that on 12 February 2015 Kluwer Law International is hosting a free webinar by Pierre Véron on the Unified Patent Court. Wolters Kluwer present this webinar by Pierre Véron, Attorney-at-law, Véron & Associés, Paris, Honorary President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), Member of the Drafting Committee of the…
This question has been on the minds of many European IP litigation stakeholders since January 26, 2015. On that date, the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in United Video Properties v. Telenet referred some preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) regarding the (in)compatibility of Belgium’s system of capped recovery…
Rather ironically, Directive 2004/48/EC (the “Enforcement Directive”), which was meant to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights throughout the European Union (“EU”), had just the opposite effect, at least in one aspect. As the readers know well, the Directive requires the applicant of a preliminary injunction to prove that an act of infringement is…
by Dr. Simon Klopschinski Under EPO case law there is the “inescapable trap” of Article 123 (2) and (3) EPC. The German Federal Court of Justice decided in the “Winkelmesseinrichtung” case that the “inescapable trap” does not apply to German national patents. In recent time different nullity boards of the German Federal Patent Court have…
