In a decision by the Svea Court of Appeal, a preliminary injunction granted by the Stockholm District Court against the company Niconovum AB, was lifted. The Court held that the patent of McNeil AB was probably not valid, despite a request by the patentee for reformulation of the patent claims during the proceedings. The Court…
In this case the Court confirmed that an invention can be patentable only if it affects matter by its industrial application. A patentable invention must involve a material creation of a new construction, composition or a new manner of technical influence on matter. In the category of ‘devices’, internal structure of a device is determined…
In this case the Court held that a previous patent application and other scientific publications which did not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, could not influence the novelty of the invention for which that patent application was later filed….
In this decision the EBoA held that sexually crossing of plants is an ‘essential biological process’ within the meaning of Art. 53(b) EPC. Any claim that contains a step of sexually crossing therefore falls within the exception to patentability, whether or not additional technical measures (e.g. selecting) would be present. Only if a claim relates…
On the occasion of a dispute opposing the Institut Pasteur and two Chiron companies, the French Cour de Cassation rendered on 14 December 2010 an interesting decision which confirms the existing case law on three points : the “file wrapper estoppel” theory, the contributory infringement and the infringement by equivalence.
The pan-generational failure to agree a system enabling unitary patent protection among the countries of the EPC and/or EU is well known among innovators, patent attorneys and lawyers alike. Following renewed efforts in recent years, particularly under the presidencies of Sweden and Belgium, substantial stumbling blocks remain. One unfortunate development last summer was the challenge…
Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!
By way of follow up of my many posts on the “intersections” between Italian patent law and the administrative procedures aimed at the authorisation of generic drugs (e.g. here, here and here), it is interesting to note another means by which the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) attempts to remain outside any patent dispute that may…
What happens in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system, if – during pending infringements proceedings – the nullity court declares the patent partly invalid? The patentee can amend its infringement action accordingly. The infringement action is then based on the patent claim as amended by the nullity court, and not on the patent claim as initially…
In a recent decision the Federal Swiss Supreme Court reversed a decision rendered by the Civil Court of the Canton Basel-Stadt in a case between Novartis and Teva Pharma concerning Teva’s product Fluvastatin-Teva Retard because the judgment did not contain a written statement of grounds. The patent litigation community eagerly awaits the new Federal Code of Civil Procedure that will enter into force on 1 January 2011. After the harmonization of the Swiss civil procedural law, the issue of missing reasoning and statements of ground should not arise anymore.
