Note on High Court, 27 November 2012, Actavis/Eli Lilly Introduction Last year the English Supreme Court in a copyright case held that there is no doubt that the modern trend is in favour of the enforcement of foreign IP rights and that there are no issues of policy which militate against it nor is there…
Recently approved “Balduzzi Decree” (Law No. 189/12 of 8 November 2012 (confirming Law Decree 158/12 of 13 September 2012 – a consolidated version of the Decree is available here) seems to have changed quite a lot in terms of the protection of pharmaceutical patents in Italy, making it totally Inconvenient for generics to launch at…
Liversidge v (1) Owen Mumford Limited (2) Abbott Laboratories Limited In April 2011, the claimant commenced patent infringement proceedings in the UK Patents County Court (“PCC”) against the defendants in respect of European Patent No. 2067496 entitled “Medical Injector”. The defendants denied infringement and counterclaimed invalidity. Background The claimant filed a patent application for a…
Miquel Montana’s preliminary comments on the decision of the English High Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [27th November 2012] provide interesting food for thought. Since some readers may not be familiar with the facts of the case and the relevant procedural rules in the UK, I will attempt to provide an overview before providing…
On 27 November 2012, the Honourable Mr Justice Arnold surprised the European patent community with an unprecedented decision (Actavis Group HF and Eli Lilly & Company; Medis EHF and Eli Lilly & Company) where an English Court accepted jurisdiction to decide a declaratory non-infringement action relating to the UK, German, French, Italian and Spanish part…
When the legislation creating supplementary protection certificates (now consolidated in Regulation 469/2009/EC (the “SPC Regulation”)) was first introduced in 1993 no-one could have foreseen the deluge of CJEU references on the interpretation of this “uniform solution” that was to follow. As recently as autumn 2011, one might have expected (or at least hoped) that the…
by Hetti Hilge The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed that the patent owner may recover the infringer’s profit in so far, and only in so far, as it results from the use of the patent (BGH, judgment of 24.07.2012, X ZR 51/11 – Flaschenträger). With this decision the X. Senate (bench) of the BGH…
A recent Decision of the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.05 found claims of a “mother” patent to lack novelty over the disclosure content of an EPO application that was a daughter (divisional) to the mother patent. In many important jurisdictions, including the USA and Japan, Applicant’s own earlier filed but later published patent filings…
A patent can be re-assigned to the legitimate rights holder based on a claim of entitlement under Article 118 Italian IP Code, even when the patented subject matter differs from the invention made by the legitimate rights holder, when such differences do not involve an inventive step. A summary of this case will be posted…
If the patent provides a multi-level method to be applied in more than one production entity (here: the preparation of sausage casing as endless rolls and their automatic filling at the sausage manufacturers’), the “skilled person” can be a team of several persons specialized in different disciplines, e.g. mechanical engineering, process technology and food technology,…
