It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of expert evidence in patents cases before the English Court. In a typical trial well over half of the time will be devoted to cross-examination of the parties’ experts in front of the Judge who will be guaranteed to listen carefully and form an opinion. The choice of…
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recently further confirmed the basic tendency of bringing national case law into line with that of the European Patent Office. In the decision “Wiedergabe topographischer Informationen” (Reproduction of topographical information)BGH.Wiedergabe.topografischer.Informationen.X.ZR.47-07, the Federal Court of Justice had to deal with a method and device for the perspective display of…
H. Lundbeck A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lundbeck) is the holder of European patent EP 0 347 066 entitled “new enantiomers and their isolation”, which designates France and was filed on 1 June 1989; it claims priority of a British patent dated 14 June 1988. The invention relates to the two new enantiomers of the antidepressant drug Citalopram and the use of…
For many years it has been heavily disputed in Danish and Nordic legal theory, whether the doctrine of equivalents should or should not be accorded weight in the construction of the protective scope of a patent. While on the one hand it has been argued that the application of the doctrine could lead to –…
Interesting decision on prima facie validity of European patents in Belgian PI proceedings: the respectieve claims of the parties have to be taken into consideration to assess the consequences of an affected prima facie validity. By a decision of 16 November 2010, the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court held that the prima facie validity…
The Patent Chambers of the Regional Court Munich headed by Judge Guntz and Judge Kaess, introduced a revised procedure to accelerate patent infringement litigation proceedings at the end of 2009. After one year, the new proceedings are well accepted by practitioners. The new proceedings generally procure more time and cost efficient patent infringement proceedings. The Munich Patent Chambers aim at offering an attractive court for patent litigation in competition with the popular courts in Düsseldorf and Mannheim.
According to article 66.2 of the Patent Act, as amended after the implementation of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC), in order to claim damages the patentee may chose (i) the negative economic consequences, including the profits the owner could foreseeably have earned from working the patented invention if there had been no competition from the…
In Germany, the patentee who wins his case in first instance has a strong weapon in his hands. His first instance judgment is immediately enforceable upon provision of security. The patentee can provide a bank guarantee and may then, with the means of administrative fines and/or detention, stop the defendant from using the patented invention…
Certain patent attorneys (patent attorney litigators) have the right to conduct intellectual property litigation in England and Wales, being “any matter relating to the protection of any invention, design, technical information, or trade mark, or similar rights, or as to any matter involving passing off or any matter ancillary thereto” (from the Higher Court Regulations…
By a judgement dated 28 September 2010, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris held that claims 1, 2 and 3 of the French designation of Merck & Co. Ltd’s Patent EP 0 724 444 were invalid for being excluded from the scope of patentability in accordance with the provisions of Article 53(c) EPC 2000 (former Article 52 (4) EPC 1973). The court held that the invention the subject-matter of main claim 1 was only a new dosage regime ranging from 0.05 to 1 mg) of an already known compound (finasteride) in an already known therapeutic application (the treatment of hyperandrogenic conditions and especially the treatment of androgenic alopecia). A mere new dosage regime is not a second medical use but a therapeutic method excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53 (c) EPC 2000.
