The Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court and held that the act of replacing Shutz’s bottles in Shutz’s outer protective cages with Werit’s bottles constituted ’ making’ products protected by Shutz’s patent, which encompassed both the bottle and the cage. Click here for the full text of this case. A full summary…
In the recent case of Merck v Teva (decision of 8 April [2011] EWCA Civ 382), the English Court of Appeal confirmed that when considering the question of inventive step in light of prior art, it did not matter that the prior art was published only a few days before the priority date of a…
In countries where Judges are not trained in the technical field of the invention, they need experts to help them understand the factual aspects of the case. According to Spanish law, these experts may be appointed by the parties or by the Court, upon request by either of the parties. By law, there are circumstances…
Customs actions based on the EC Regulation No 1383/2003 are a very effective tool. Also patentees can file an application for border seizure with the national customs authorities to prohibit infringing goods from entering into the European Community. Customs authorities detain goods which are merely suspected of infringing a patent; they do not decide whether…
After the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) had confirmed the validity of the German SPC for the enantiomeric escitalopram (and its underlying patent) in 2009, the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) now confirmed in further nullity proceedings the validity of the SPC.
In the framework of preliminary injunction proceedings instituted by AstraZeneca against the Italian subsidiary of Stada, EG S.p.A., by decision of 11 – 14 February 2011, the IP Chamber of the Court of Turin issued an interesting order concerning the application of Art. 68 (1bis) IP Code, according to which “companies intending to manufacture pharmaceutical…
On 23 February 2011 the Administrative Chamber of the “Audiencia Nacional” handed down an interesting judgment ordering the Administration to bear the damages caused by the erroneous price reduction of EVOPAD®, a medicament marketed by JANSSEN-CILAG comprised of Galantamine. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: The Ministry of Health reduced by…
As previously discussed, the English Court of Appeal has clearly stated its support for judicial collaboration facilitating de facto harmonisation of patent law in Europe (Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH v Scott [2010] EWCA Civ 1110). However, in a recent decision in the English Patents Court (Lundbeck v Norpharma and Infosint [2011] EWHC 907), Floyd J. expressed…
In this case the claimant filed an application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), however the application was refused by the Lithuanian patent office. Appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court referred the question whether the six-month period for application for an SPC begins on the date of granting Community marketing authorization, or…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In their posts of 21 Oct. 2010 and 28 Jan. 2011, Hetti Hilge and Max v. Rospatt reported a difference of opinion between German courts on the question of whether or not there is a requirement of “urgency” in cases of ex-parte inspection orders following the so-called “Düsseldorfer Besichtigungspraxis” (Düsseldorf inspection…
