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…
Part 1 of the drama with the title “You Shall not Lie” is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam. It appeared to me that the potential consequences of this decision justify a further post on this matter. Or could you imagine to go to jail just…
Vetrotech Saint-Gobain (International) (hereinafter referred to as “Vetrotech”) is the holder of European patent No. 0 620 781 designating France, filed on 5 August 1993 and granted on 19 May 1999, entitled “Light-transparent heat-protection element”, and concerning the field of fire-protection glass and its manufacturing process. Suspecting Interver Sécurité (hereinafter referred to as “Interver”) of manufacturing and marketing in France the glass…
As the readers will know, the complex architecture of the European patent system allows third parties to challenge the validity of a patent by filing an opposition before the European Patent Office (“EPO”), by filing a revocation action before national Courts, or by using both routes. In some cases, this has given rise to the…
The Proposal for a New Regulation on Customs Action of May 2011 is presently under discussion in a Council Working Group. Among other topics, in particular the new right to be heard, the limitation of simplified procedures to counterfeit and pírated goods, the new procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments, the incorporation of topography rights into the Regulation, the handling of goods in transit and the structure of the new Regulation will probably need further clarification.The end of discussions is presently not to foresee.
The Danish Supreme Court upheld the Maritime and Commercial Court’s decision revoking an injunction against Teva issued by the Danish High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that a condition for the grant of an injunction is that it is “established or rendered probable” that the defendant will carry out the exact actions which are sought…
Contrary to the decision of the Opposition Division issued two weeks later, the District Court of The Hague held Novozymes’ patent to be novel and inventive. It also held the patent indirectly infringed. The court held that a literal disclosure of a claim feature in the prior art does not necessarily equate to a directly…
The Federal Institute of Intellectual Property can also issue a supplementary protection certificate to an applicant if a certificate for the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or combination thereof has already been granted to a third person. By interpreting the law in that way – only restricting the grant of a certificate for the same…
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…
