In a judgment of 11 December 2009, the Commercial Court of Antwerp invalidated the Belgian part of EP 0 663 828 of Sepracor for lack of inventive step. This patent claims the use of the active substance levociterizine, an enantiomer which is used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, and commercialized as “Xysal”. …
German courts (and German attorneys) have been quite creative to improve the position of the patentee in litigation in the past. Last year the Olanzapine- decision of the Appeals Court in Düsseldorf, which rendered a preliminary injunction although the patent had been previously nullified by the Federal Patent Court, has caused a sensation in the…
One of the topics most hotly discussed before the Spanish Courts over the last few years is whether the legal effects of the TRIPS‘ provisions on patents are governed by Community law or by the national law of each Member State. The debate was sparked in 2003, when a German manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals filed…
The “nail-Byting” in the Computer IP community came to an end on 12 May 2010 when the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal finally handed down its opinion in the “Programs for Computers” case. The opinion is about 4 questions which were referred to the EBA by the President (Ms. Brimelow) under Article 112(1)(b). The decision…
By decision no. 6967/2009 of 14 May 2009, the IP Chamber of the Court of Milan found for the invalidity of a patent claiming the second medical use of a known pharmaceutical product for lack of inventive step. This decision is remarkable for at least two reasons. Firstly, the Court departed from the findings of…
The grant of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) has been the subject of numerous recent cases in Europe. In the UK, the latest development in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited v. Comptroller-General of Patents [2010] EWHC 976 (Pat) concerned the issue of whether a previously authorised product can be the subject of an SPC for a different…
On the basis of a use patent, Aventis filed for interim relief against Hospira at the Bailiff’s Court (Enforcement court) at Lyngby City Court in Denmark. The claim was based on DK/EP 0593656 and the defence raised by Hospira was invalidity of the invoked right.
I have to start this with a simple introduction into container technology: This is an intermediate bulk container (IBC): In principle such an IBC consists of three elements, the base, the outer steel cage and the inner bottle. The decisive issue in various patent infringement cases was whether the replacement of the bottle amounts to…
One of the new question marks introduced by Directive 2004/48 (the so-called “Enforcement Directive”) is what amount of indicia is required to prove that an act of infringement is “imminent” for the purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction aimed at prohibiting such act. Although the declared goal of the Enforcement Directive was to strengthen the…
The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were answered as follows: 1. A claimed imaging method, in which, when carried out, maintaining the life and health of the subject is important and which comprises or encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires professional medical expertise to…
