(Indirect) infringement, Inventive step, Pharma, Procedure, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

Introduction In my previous post of 2 August 2013 I made passing reference to the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in the Copaxone litigation. This case was an appeal of the decision of Arnold J (previously reported here) where he found Yeda’s patent valid and infringed. With permission of the court, Mylan…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, European Union, Italy, Procedure

(Trevisan & Cuonzo Avvocati)/

In a recent ruling rendered in the General Hospital v Asclepion case, the Italian Supreme Court wrote the latest episode of the “Italian torpedo” never ending saga. In particular, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Italian Courts in respect of a cross-border Declaration of Non Infringement (DNI). This ruling overturns the earlier Supreme…

Damages, Enforcement, Germany, Injunction, Procedure, Scope of protection

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

A recent decision of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf now confirms that a holding company cannot easily dive away under the patent infringing activities of its subsidiaries. Background Many companies are designed in the form of a group, having a holding company at the top and a number of subsidiaries which are directly or…

United Kingdom

(EIP)/

Section 70 of the UK’s 1977 Patents Act “the Act” (as shown below) creates a cause of action against a party that issues groundless threats of patent infringement: (1) Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with…

Switzerland

(MLL Legal Ltd.)/

Earlier this year the Federal Patent Court published its annual report for the business year 2012. The report provides an overview of the businesses and procedures during the new Swiss Patent Court’s first year. The number of cases which was submitted to the Federal Patent Court in its first business year corresponded to the expectations….

United States of America

(Foley&Lardner LLP)/

The first set of “technical corrections” to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted on January 14, 2013. While this legislation did make “technical” corrections to some of the new AIA provisions, it also made substantive changes to both the AIA and other provisions of U.S. patent law, including the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)…