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…
“Danger of delay” is not a requirement for the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. The inspection order need not to be filed immediately after the patent owner has acquired knowledge that the patent is (about to be) infringed. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be…
Although plans appear to be underway to establish a centralised enforcement court for patents in Denmark, the current position is that a patentee enforcing his or her rights, must turn to the local jurisdiction where the alleged infringer is domiciled. For the time being, therefore, all interlocutory injunction cases based on patents are heard by…
A recently published decision of the Court of Turin in the case Merck Sharpe & Dohme versus Sandoz (decision of 7 April 2011), concerning dorzolamide hydrochloride timolol maleate eye drops, provides an interesting interpretation of the Italian rules governing territorial jurisdiction in the case of the infringement of pharmaceutical patents. MS&D sued Sandoz before the…
The Swiss company Bobst (hereinafter referred to as “Bobst”) is the holder of European patent No. 1 170 228 relating to a “device for controlling the means for feeding sheets in a machine”. After having had a saisie-contrefaçon carried out on 17 December 2007 in Fellmann Cartonnages’ premises in Soultz, in Haut Rhin (French administrative division), Bobst served a summons…
The smartphone wars appear to be continuing unabated in much of the developed world. In July 2011, Apple commenced infringement proceedings against HTC in Germany in respect of three patents (two in Munich and one in Mannheim). HTC responded in August 2011 by initiating proceedings in the English Patents Court seeking to revoke the corresponding…
The gentle reader of this blog knows that on January 1, 2012 the new Federal Patent Court will take up work in Switzerland. As Switzerland’s court of first instance in matters dealing with patents, the Federal Patent Court will rule on civil-law disputes concerning patents. It will rule, for instance, on litigation over patent validity…
