On September 30th, 2021, the Danish High Court (Eastern Division) rendered its decision in a long running patent infringement case. One important element of the case was the question of acquiescence, in particular, whether the patent pro-prietor is required to act on a possible patent infringement (and commence legal proceedings) when opposition proceedings are pending….
1. The established approach of applying the due-care criterion to the question of removal of the cause of non-compliance under Rule 136 EPC leads to an additional admissibility requirement, by expanding the scope of the substantive due-care criterion, which has no basis in the EPC. 2. Removal of the cause of non-compliance is a question…
On 9 July 2021, the Court of Milan issued a preliminary injunction (PI) prohibiting a generic company from selling everolimus for use in combination with an aromatase inhibitor in the treatment of hormone receptor positive breast tumours. The PI was issued on the basis of EP 3351246, which is one of the patents held by…
In the course of obtaining regulatory approval for a drug product in the United States, a pharmaceutical company will make numerous representations about its product in submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). If these representations contradict arguments made during prosecution of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), they…
On 18 October 2021, the Russian IP Court rendered the decision in Geropharm vs. Novo Nordisk. While dismissing the claims, the IP Court has given the green light to a new legal mechanism of challenging a Patent Term Extension (‘PTE’) and Supplementary Protection Certificate (‘SPC’). It used to be problematic for generic companies to meet…
Judgments from the Spanish Supreme Court on patent cases are a rare occurrence. In a recent decision, the Court rules on insufficiency of disclosure, a revocation ground which – once somewhat of a sideshow – is nowadays a staple of Spanish revocation proceedings. The Supreme Court provides some guidance on trial and error and undue…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal has now issued its long-awaited full decision in case G 1/21. Readers can access it here. The decision deserves a few comments. The Enlarged Board’s advance publication of the order of the decision in July was viewed by many as a sort of cliffhanger. This was because the question answered…
Even though the United Kingdom is expressly mentioned in the Protocol for Provisional Application (PPA) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement as one of the states that has to give its support to the PPA, this is not seen as a stumbling block for the entry into force of the Protocol by the member states…
A judgment of 7 July 2021 from the Spanish Supreme Court has been published, which, as discussed below, following the case law from the EPO’s Boards of Appeal, introduces certain guidelines for assessing whether or not an invention is sufficiently described. The background of the case can be summarized as follows: The complainant filed a…
In Japanese patent litigation, calling expert witnesses is very rare and the parties usually try to prove common technical knowledge (CGK) by submitting documentary evidence, such as publications available as of the priority date and written expert declarations. Thus, parties need to be aware that descriptions in the publications are crucial and cannot be supplemented…
