Germany, Procedure

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

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.

European Union

(Clifford Chance)/

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…

Procedure, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /1 Comment

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…

Biologics, Chemical Engineering, EPC, Exceptions to patentability, France, Second Medical Use, Validity

(Véron & Associés)/

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.

Germany, Novelty

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The Court addresses the issue of potential contradictions between features in the generic part and in the characterizing part of a patent claim and the impact on claim construction. Such contradictions may not be resolved by leaving out the features of the generic part when the claim allows for a claim construction which is free…

Damages, Enforcement, Italy

(Trevisan & Cuonzo)/

Rambus and Micron have been involved in complex patent litigation in Italy since 2000. Things started when, in 2000, Rambus enforced the Italian designation of its patent EP 0525068 on SDRAM memories against Micron before the Court of Monza, obtained an ex parte seizure order and executed the same at the important manufacturing plant that…

Jurisdiction, Procedure, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/

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…

Case Law, Inventive step, Netherlands, Validity

(Brinkhof)/

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…