What happens when the same invention is covered by a French national patent and a European patent claiming the priority of the French application and when the European patent lapses after having replaced the French national patent?
The patentee has no patent at all!
That is the bitter lesson of the 2 July 2010 decision of the Cour d’Appel of Paris.
The holder of a patent is entitled to damages caused by unlawful usage of the patent’s teaching. But what to do if the patent is transferred while the patent is being infringed? Who can claim damages for whose damage then? In principle, the transfer of the patent is not subject to the registration of the…
One of the most contentious points discussed before Spanish Courts over the last few years is the question of whether or not Courts should examine the validity of the patent when this has been raised as a defence in the context of preliminary injunction proceedings. On 17 June 2010, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona…
The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in its 28 May 2010 decision, Institut Pasteur v Société Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, illustrates the specificity of the French doctrine of equivalents, rejecting the “file wrapper estoppel” theory as it is known in the US. However, since it applies the doctrine of equivalents although the function of the claimed means is not novel, this decision does not seem to be in line with the majority of decisions rendered on that item.
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on appeal (as Bilski v. Kappos) that affirmed the judgment of the CAFC of affirming the rejection of the patent, but revised many aspects of the CAFC’s decision. In their decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the machine-or-transformation test as…
By a decision of 20 May 2009, the Italian Supreme Court clarified the limits of the so called pharmacy exception contemplated by Italian patent law, according to which the extemporaneous preparation by the pharmacist of units of a drug, based on a medical prescription, using a patented active substance, does not result in patent infringement….
The torrent of UK cases concerning applications for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) shows no sign of abating. Following the reference from the Court of Appeal in June to the CJEU in Medeva’s SPC Applications regarding the scope of the SPC Regulation (see previous post), the issue of SPCs for combination products has arisen again in…
The General Court upheld, for the most part, the decision of the European Commission in AstraZeneca. The Court held that AstraZeneca infringed Article 82 EC (prohibition of abuse of a dominant market position) in so far as AstraZeneca requested the registration of Losec capsules market authorisations in Norway and Denmark. The Court further held that…
In appeal proceedings against a granted ex parte injunction, the Court of Appeal considered that the test whether there is an imminent threat of infringement must be based on objective criteria.. There is an objective threat of infringement if the defendant obtained a marketing authorisation and a price. The Court considered the conditional intention not…
Claim 1 of the opposed patent had a limitation to a range of values with a lower bound that was slightly higher than disclosed in the priority document. The Board refused to recognize priority. As the priority document was prior art, the claim lacked novelty. The proprietor filed an auxiliary request wherein protection at the…
