NL – CDVI v. Impro / Appeal

Posted: September 24th, 2020

CDVI v. Impro, Court of Appeal of The Hague, the Netherlands, 23 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1622 Facts Construction Diffusion Vente Internationale SA (“CDVI”) is a global supplier of access systems and electronic locks. Access & Beyond B.V., formerly Impro Technologies Europe B.V. (“Impro”), is a distributor of Impro branded products such as security equipment and systems […]


FR – Eli Lilly v. Fresenius Kabi

Posted: September 23rd, 2020

Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly France v. Fresenius Kabi France and Fresenius Kabi Groupe France, Judiciary Court of Paris, France, 11 September 2020 The Court declares that Lilly’s Pemetrexed patent (EP 1 313 508) is valid and issues an injunction against Fresenius Kabi. A copy of the decision (in English) can be read here.


DE – Divisional Game

Posted: September 14th, 2020

The recent decision “Divisional Game” of the Munich District Court I, dated 24 February 2020 (docket no. 7 O 1456/20) is a landmark decision. This decision was handed down in ex-parte preliminary injunction proceedings and was based on an undue obstruction of competitors pursuant to German Unfair Competition Law. The bottom line of this decision […]


NL – Biogen v. Richter Gedeon

Posted: September 10th, 2020

Joined cases: Biogen B.V. and Samsung Bioepis UK Limited v. Richter Gedeon NYRT and Richter Gedeon NYRT v. Biogen Netherlands B.V. and Samsung Bioepis B.V., District Court The Hague, 29 July 2020, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:7089 Richter is the holder of EP 3 212 667 B1 (“EP 667”) which claims a pharmaceutical formulation which is free of a […]


DE – “Bausatz” / The direct and unambiguous differences in comparison to standing EPO practice

Posted: August 6th, 2020

The recent decision “Bausatz” of the German Federal Supreme Court dated February 13, 2020 (docket no. X ZR 6/18) is noteworthy for the clear illustration of the criteria the German Federal Supreme Court applies to the assessment of inadmissible extensions. The Federal Supreme Court’s general approach is partially in contrast to the practice pursued by […]


CJEU – Santen / SPC / Comment

Posted: July 17th, 2020

Santen – Clear Judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, by Tobias Wuttke Dr. Tobias Popp, Meissner Bolte The recently published judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) dated 9 July 2020 (C-673/18 – Santen) does not merely concern supplementary protection certificates (“SPCs”), which can extend the term […]


DE – Sisvel v. Haier / English version of judgment

Posted: July 13th, 2020

An English version of the Sisvel v. Haier judgment is now available The German Federal Court of Justice has issued its first decision on FRAND since the CJEU Huawei v. ZTE decision. In the Sisvel v. Haier case, the FCJ in particular emphasized the obligation of the implementer to be willing to take a FRAND […]


DE – Eli Lilly v. various generics / validity (pemetrexed)

Posted: July 11th, 2020

With judgment dated 7 July 2020 (docket no. X ZR 150/18), the German Federal Court of Justice found the German part of Lilly’s patent EP 1 313 508 valid and dismissed the judgment of the German Federal Patent Court which had held in 2018 that Lilly’s patent lacked inventive step. The reasoned decision is not […]


CJEU – Santen v. Directeur Général INPI / SPC

Posted: July 10th, 2020

Santen SAS v. Directeur Général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle, Court of Justice of the EU, 9 July 2020, Case C‑673/18 “Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning […]


DE – FRAND objection: German Federal Court of Justice applies ZTE v. Huawei

Posted: July 8th, 2020

FRAND objection: German Federal Court of Justice, judgment dated May 5, 2020 – docket no. KZR 36/17 By its recently published judgment dated May 5, 2020, docket no. KZR 36/17, the German Federal Court of Justice for the first time interpreted and applied the requirements that were defined by the ECJ in its “ZTE vs. […]