EPLAW PATENT BLOG

NL – SPC Trastuzamab emtansine (Kadcyla)

Posted: August 9th, 2017

Legal entity [X] v. The Dutch Patent Office, District Court The Hague, 19 July 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8031 Court appeal against the decision of the Dutch Patent Office to refuse to grant an SPC for trastuzamab emtansine. The Court agrees with the Dutch Patent Office that Article 3 first part and under a of SPC […]

READ MORE

NL – Pfizer v. Dutch Minister of Health / First and Second medical indication – Pricing

Posted: August 8th, 2017

Pfizer v. Dutch Minister of Health, Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), 7 July 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:CBB:2017:249 Law on Pricing of Medicines. The Dutch Minister of Health sets maximum prices for medicines based on the prices of medicines in 4 reference states. In the current case, Pfizer appeals the pricing decision at the […]

READ MORE

NL – Smart Technologies v. CTouch Europe

Posted: August 1st, 2017

Smart Technologies ULC v. CTouch Europe B.V., District Court The Hague, 26 July 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8247 Smart Technologies is the holder of a patent on smart television screens. CTouch’s Gillette defence fails as there is a theoretic and practical difference between its products and the prior art. Injunction and ancillary claims awarded. A copy […]

READ MORE

NL – Mobile Sanitary Solutions v. TWT Verhuur

Posted: July 31st, 2017

Mobile Sanitary Solutions B.V. v. TWT Verhuur B.V., Summary Judge of the District Court of The Hague, 28 July 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8486 Patent Holder Mobile Sanitary Solutions alleges infringement. TWT states that the patent invoked is invalid. In a preliminary ruling the summary judge agrees with TWT and holds that the patent is likely […]

READ MORE

NL – Millennium v. Teva

Posted: July 31st, 2017

Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Nederland B.V., Pharmachemie B.V., Teva Pharma B.V., Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva API B.V., Summary Judge of the District Court of The Hague, 25 July 2017, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8259 The present dispute concerns an alleged infringement of the rights of Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Millennium”) as vested in the Dutch […]

READ MORE

DE – Abdichtsystem

Posted: July 26th, 2017

“Abdichtsystem”, BGH, 16 May 2017, Case X ZR 120/15, reported by Nadine Heiartz and Dominik Woll, Bardehle Pagenberg German Federal Court of Justice on claims for recall and removal in Germany in case of acts performed abroad  In the present judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice (»BGH«) found that sales completely performed abroad may […]

READ MORE

NL – Swiss Pharma v. Biogen

Posted: July 17th, 2017

Swiss Pharma International v. Biogen MA Inc., District Court The Hague, the Netherlands, 12 July 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:7628 Biogen holds EP 1485127, which relates to the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”). Swiss Pharma seeks to invalidate the Dutch part of the patent. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are invalidated due to lack of novelty as these […]

READ MORE

UK – Actavis v Eli Lilly / Supreme Court

Posted: July 12th, 2017

Actavis UK Limited and others v Eli Lilly and Company, UK Supreme Court, 12 July 2017, [2017] UKSC 48 The UK Supreme Court today gave its judgment in the long-running Actavis v Eli Lilly case concerning Lilly’s Alimta vitamin regimen patents in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. The Supreme Court allowed Lilly’s appeal and […]

READ MORE

IT – INTERMARINE v. CMC MARINE

Posted: July 5th, 2017

Intermarine S.p.A. (formerly Rodriquez Cantieri Navali S.p.A.) v. CMC Marine S.r.l.. Court of Appeal of Turin, Italy, 22 June 2017, Judgement no. 106/2016 With its writ of summons in the first instance proceedings, Intermarine demanded the Court of Turin a declaration of invalidity of a utility model owned by CMC. Said utility model related to […]

READ MORE

NL – Hygro International v. Futurecare Worldwide

Posted: June 22nd, 2017

Hygro International PTY Limited v. Futurecare Worldwide B.V. et al., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 21 June 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:6743 Futurecare did not respond to Hygro’s rebuttal of Futurecare’s invalidity arguments. Hygro therefore sufficiently established that it is entitled to the patent. Futurecare further did not dispute that the products marketed by them […]

READ MORE