Kluwer Patent Blog

Damages, Enforcement, France, Injunction, Procedure

Civil liability because of the enforcement of a preliminary injunction: the priority question on constitutionality

Pierre Véron (Véron & Associés)/October 24, 2012

Thanks to the constitutional revision of 23 July 2008 (which created Article 61-1 and amended Article 62 of the French Constitution), a new procedure to control the constitutionality of laws was introduced into French law, which came into force on 1st March 2010: the “priority question on constitutionality” (“question prioritaire de constitutionnalité”). Before this reform, the constitutionality could only be verified…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, Procedure

Lifting the fog

Miquel Montañá (Clifford Chance)/October 23, 2012March 18, 2017

One of the remedies available to intellectual property owners introduced by what is known as the Enforcement Directive was the publication of the judgment where infringement is declared. This remedy was already foreseen in article 63 of the 1986 Spanish Patents Act, which includes among the remedies available to the patent owner, inter alia, “the…

Biologics, Italy

The Administrative Court reverses the decision of the Italian Antitrust Authority in Pfizer.

Daniela Ampollini (Trevisan & Cuonzo)/October 17, 2012

On 3 September 2012, the Adminstrative Court decision in the Italian antitrust case involving Pfizer was published. This decision completely reversed the ruling of the Italian Antitrust Authority which had initially found Pfizer guilty of abuse of dominant position and applied a 10.6 million euro fine (see my earlier post here). In substance, the Administrative…

Countries, Inventive step, Novelty, Spain

Super-evident

Miquel Montañá (Clifford Chance)/October 16, 2012 /1 Comment

In countries where patents and utility models (sometimes called “petty patents”) co-exist, a recurrent question is which is the level of inventiveness required for utility models as opposed to patents. According to article 8 of Spain’s 1986 Patents Act, which mirrors article 56 of the European Patent Convention, an invention protected by a patent is…

Case Law, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Ireland, Novelty, Procedure

I Medinol Ltd v. Abbott Ireland and Abbot Vascular International BCBA & Others, High Court, Commercial List Dublin (High Court, Commercial List Dublin), 10 March 2011

Shane O'Brien (Mccann Fitzgerald)/October 15, 2012

Applying a purposive construction of the claims the Court found no infringement similar to the conclusion in prior parallel proceedings between the parties in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. The issue of added matter was left to be addressed in a separate judgment. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…

Added matter, Case Law, Ireland, Validity

II Medinol Ltd v. Abbott Ireland and Abbot Vascular International BCBA & Others, High Court, Commercial List Dublin (High Court, Commercial List Dublin), 27 May 2011

Shane O'Brien (Mccann Fitzgerald)/October 15, 2012

The Court cited the parallel proceedings between the parties in the United Kingdom, where the approach of the EPO Board of Appeal in T331/87 Houdaille/Removal of Feature [1991] EPOR 194 was applied, and concluded that the changes in the patent amount to added matter. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Account of profits, Case Law, Damages, Netherlands

Primus v. Roche, Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag), 21 August 2012

Peter Burgers (Brinkhof)/October 14, 2012

The Court of Appeal held that Roche c.s. infringed the patent. Test results regarding the allegedly infringing product were admitted as evidence because Roche’s arguments were held insufficient to render these tests unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide on the infringement in Germany based on Art. 24 EC 44/2001, because…

Belgium, Case Law, Pharma, SPC, Validity

Lundbeck / Tiefenbacher, Ratiopharm, Teva Pharma, Court of Appeal Brussels (Hof van Beroep te Brussel), 14 February 2012

Florence Verhoestraete/October 14, 2012May 31, 2018

The Court of Appeal partially reversed the Brussels Commercial Court’s decision invalidating Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram, to the extent that it had immediate effect. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com

Belgium, Case Law, Injunction, SPC

Lundbeck / Eurogenerics, Court of Appeal Brussels (Cour d’Appel Bruxelles), 27 June 2012

Florence Verhoestraete/October 14, 2012

The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Eurogenerics on the basis of Lundbeck’s Belgian SPC for escitalopram, despite the fact that the SPC had been invalidated in earlier proceedings, the court found that, given the suspensive effect of the appeal against the decision invalidating the SPC, a preliminary injunction could be granted…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, European Union, Procedure

EU Patent Makes Next Step – But Whereto? Success or Abyss?

Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle)/October 12, 2012March 20, 2017

On 27 September 2012, a new consolidated version of the Draft Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (Document 14268/12) was (finally) published. The consolidated text includes some of the amendments agreed upon on 5 December 2011 as well as on the 29/30 June 2012 EU Council summit, and also presents further amendments and quite a…