The smartphone forum wars still show no sign of abating with another application for an expedited patent revocation action before the English Court (ZTE v Ericsson [2011] EWHC 2709 (Pat)), following closely on the heels of the HTC v Apple case that we reported on last month (judgment dated 19 September 2011; post dated 6…
by Rüdiger Pansch, rospatt osten pross And here we are again with more recent decisions on the bulk container paradox (see Brian’s post Bottling the After-Market; Max’s post on Patent Law and Philosophy; my post on Entitative Elements of Bulk Containers). Imagine you have an IBC (Intermediate Bulk Container), just as this one: Now, you…
The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) issued a nullity appeal judgment on 12 July 2011 in which the requirements for an amendment to be held allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC and Sec. 38 German Patent Act seem to have been further tightened as opposed to the previous practice. The decision (case number X ZR…
Co-author Christiaen Dekoninck The Ghent Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of the German patent holder Grumbach and its Dutch licensee, Bollegraaf Recycling Machinery, relating to the Carbo Separator, a paper sorting device sold by their Dutch competitor Wagensveld to the Stora Enso group’s Belgian subsidiary. The Court affirmed the earlier decision of the President…
The English High Court has refused to grant summary judgment to LG Electronics in relation to validity of certain patents, holding that, due to the uncertainty of the legal issue concerning the confidentiality of the prior disclosure relied on, the matter was not relevant for summary judgment. LG Electronics (“LG”) sued Sony for infringement of…
As is known, damages for patent infringement may be calculated using one of three calculation methods, i.e. infringer’s profit, licence analogy and lost profit. Two recent decisions, one by the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt regarding infringer’s profit and one by the Regional Court Munich regarding license analogy, are evidence of actual tendencies being taken by…
The case determined whether Abena A/S (hereinafter “Abena”) waste bags with lace up sealing, which had a seam with curved corners in one side of the bag, infringed Etradan BS ApS´ (hereinafter “Etradan”)patent nr. DK 176709. The Court found that Etradan did not successfully prove that the extra seam on Abena´s bag was aimed at…
A supplementary protection certificate SPC granted for an enantiomer (escitalopram) cannot be declared void because a prior SPC was granted for the racemate (citalopram) when both the racemate and the enantiomer are protected by individual patents and thus are different products. This must be so because otherwise the enantiomer patent would be invalid for lack…
By Giovanni Gozzo and David Nilsson The Svea Court of Appeal partially invalidated the patent of respondent Dustcontrol, insofar as claim 1 of the patent was concerned. The Court held that it could not be deduced from claim 1 that the filter cartridge at issue in claim 1 must be a unit that neither can…
The proprietor of a patent who has granted an exclusive license to a third party, has the right – in case of patent infringement – to assert its own claims against the infringer if said proprietor has gained continuing economic advantage from having granted the license. If the patentee is the sole shareholder of licensee…
