The mere filing of an application for marketing authorization of a generic drug does not constitute an infringing activity., although of a preparatory nature as, aAlthough it is true that the filing of such an application may constitute the basis for the marketing of the drug, there still is the possibility that the eventual act…
An interesting case decided by Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.5 in May 2009 strives to put an end to the (occasional) practice of some applicants and/or their European representatives of trying to again pursue in a divisional application a claim that was finally rejected in the parent application. The decision further develops existing case law…
Two weeks ago the judges of the new Swiss Federal Patent Court convened for the first time for their swearing-in and elected the vice president of the Federal Patent Court among their ranks (Mr. Frank Schnyder). The president (Mr. Dieter Braendle) had been designated by the Federal Swiss Parliament in advance. The Judges will have to determine the new rules of procedure for patent cases pending before the future Federal Patent Court during the next few weeks. Kluwer Patent Blog will keep you posted.
In Germany it is well established case law that in normal PI cases “urgency” is a requirement which is not fulfilled if plaintiff waits too long before initiating court proceedings (although the standards for “waiting too long” vary largely between the different courts). In her post of 26 January Anja Petersen-Padberg reported about a decision…
The District Court of The Hague passed judgment today in a case between Sandoz and Glaxo regarding a combination patent held by Glaxo. The judgment comprises an extensive “lecture” on the assessment of inventive step and may become a benchmark for future cases.
In its decision of 20 October 2010 (Docket No. 21 O 7563/10), Regional.Court.Munich.20.10.2010 the Regional Court Munich had to decide on whether “urgency” is required for measures for securing evidence and, whether the request for measures for securing evidence must be rejected if the opponent is obliged to preserve the relevant documents, for instance pursuant to pharmaceutical or tax laws. The Court denied both questions and has therefore issued a decision which allows right-holders to effectively secure evidence.
At the end of last year, the English Patents Court referred yet another case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on the scope of the SPC Regulation in University of Queensland and CSL (C-630/10), making it the fifth English referral in 2010 regarding the interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 3(b) of…
On 27 October 2010 the Court of Rome issued a decision in the Janssen – Menarini v. EG case concerning the active substance nebivolol. This is one of the few reported cases on enantiomer patents in Italy. In more detail, the basic patent inter alia disclosed an AB compound (so called compound 84) formed of…
The Supreme Court held that if someone exports goods from Germany and it is not proven that the same person imported them into Austria, there is no infringement of patent rights in Austria, even when the goods are assigned to be imported into Austria. In this particular case the Court of first instance carried out…
The question in dispute was whether ratiopharm’s escitalopram was produced using Lundbeck’s patented process The Court considered that a reversal of the burden of proof in favour of the patentee might, in appropriate cases, be applied for process patents. However, in this case it was not disputed that the process developed and patented by ratiopharm’s…
