The difference between “inventiveness” within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and “inventive step” within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between these two criteria. Thus, the inventive step pursuant to § 1(1) Utility Model Act requires the same qualitative criteria as inventiveness pursuant to § 1(1)…
by Miriam Büttner This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent infringement litigation (“You shall not lie!” – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings). Court fees are fixed on the…
The issue of whether obtaining a marketing authorisation before the expiry of a patent covering the product that the marketing authorisation concerns will infringe upon the right of the patentee has now been settled by the Danish Supreme Court: In December 2006 Teva filed for a marketing authorisation for a product that Teva during subsequent…
As previously report on this blog (29 June 2011), on 20 June 2011 Floyd J. granted an ex parte interim injunction, sometimes called a “temporary restraining order” preventing Teva UK Limited (and two distributors, “Phoneix” and “AAH”) from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying its generic atorvastatin product (sold by Pfizer under the brand…
The readers will recall that one of the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctions introduced by Directive 2004/48 (the so-called “Enforcement Directive”) is proving that there is an “imminent” threat of infringement. In cases dealing with the pharmaceutical sector, Spanish Courts have interpreted “imminent” to mean that the defendant is in an objective position to launch…
In October 2009, we reported the UK Court of Appeal’s referral to the European Court of Justice (as it was then known) regarding the meaning of the term ‘the first authorisation to place the product on the market’ referred to in Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) 1768/92 (the “Regulation”) concerning the creation of a…
On August 30, 2011 the Enlarged Board of Appeal rendered its decision on the admissibility of a disclaimer whose subject-matter is disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed. It can be expected that the EPO will change its current restrictive practice in view of this decision, again allowing disclaimers for disclosed subject-matter under certain conditions. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not endorse the view that disclaiming disclosed subject-matter is always allowable. Hence, until further Board of Appeal decisions will bring more clarity as to the specific situations in which such disclaimers are allowable, there will remain a degree of uncertainty.
The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was impossible for him to prove non-distribution and that therefore the burden of proof was with the opponent. In…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a new prior art document D5 and argued lack of novelty over D5 or lack of inventive step over the combination…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based on different patents and to what extent the plaintiff may choose to use a patent at a later stage. A later action…
