Posted: November 26th, 2009
'Beslag inzake namaak / saisie contrefaçon' – Interpretation of Article 1369bis/1 of the Belgian Judicial Code and Articles 2 and 7, al. 1 of the Enforcement Directive – Interpretation of the term “indications of infringement” – process patent (polymer manufacture)
The Antwerp court of appeal was wrong to conclude that the following facts, alone or in combination, were indications of infringement by Ineos of Chevron’s patents:
a) that Chevron’s patents were directed to a process;
b) that, due to the privacy/seclusion of Ineos’ production process, a possible infringement of the said patents could only be determined by examining Ineos’s production process through a “saisie”;
c) that Ineos had opposed two of Chevron’s patents before the EPO;
d) that Ineos was a “direct competitor” of Chevron in the petrochemical industry and, in particular, in the sector of polymer manufacture.
The Supreme Court therefore annulled the Antwerp appeal ruling and remitted the case to the court of appeal of Ghent.
Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.