According to Article 79.3 of the 1986 Patents Act, patent rights not registered with the Patent Office may not be invoked against third parties. This article has sparked the debate as to whether a non-registered licensee may initiate patent infringement proceedings invoking a license agreement that has not yet been published. In its judgment dated…
The District Court of The Hague revoked Glaxo’s European Patent and Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) for an inhalable combination of fluticasone and salmeterol due to lack of inventive step. This decision is put in a pan-European perspective, with reference to the UK case law on inventive step, as well as the parallel English, German and…
The Supreme Court specifically addresses the issue of consideration of decisions issued in parallel cases before the European Patent Office or before national courts in EPC Member States and holds that such decisions may not be left unconsidered. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
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…
