UK – Unwired Planet v. Huawei

Posted: December 12th, 2017

Unwired Planet International, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Huawei Technologies UK Co. Ltd v. Unwired Planet LLC, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 30 November 2017, [2017] EWHC 3083 (Pat) This is the latest judgement in the on-going Unwired Planet saga. On 5 April 2017, Birss J issued two judgements in the FRAND trial in […]


NL – LEO Pharma v. Sandoz / Court of Appeal

Posted: December 11th, 2017

LEO Pharma v. Sandoz, Court of Appeal The Hague, 7 November 2017, 200.195.459/01, with thanks to Daan de Lange and Rien Broekstra, Brinkhof, for providing the decision as well as an English translation thereof LEO Pharma A/S (‘LEO Pharma’) is holder of EP 2 455 083 (EP 083), which claims a ‘pharmaceutical composition for dermal use […]


NL – Resolution Chemicals v. AstraZeneca – Supreme Court Opinion AG Van Peursem (full English translation)

Posted: December 4th, 2017

Resolution Chemicals Limited v. AstraZeneca B.V. and Shionogi Seiyaka Kabushiki Kasiha, Opinion PG delivered by AG G.R.B. Van Peursem, Dutch Supreme Court, 24 November 2017, Case no. 16/02891, with thanks to Willem Hoyng, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, for providing the translation “In this patent case dealing with the extent of the protection that is conferred by […]


NL – Asestek v. Coolergiant Computer

Posted: December 1st, 2017

Asestek A/S v. Coolergiant Computer Handels GmbH, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 29 November 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:13715 Asestek holds a European patent related to “a cooling system for a computer system”. The Dutch part of the EP was invalidated earlier in a decision between Asestek and Cooler Master (that decision can be read […]


NO – Orifarm v. Mundipharma

Posted: November 24th, 2017

Orifarm Generics AS et al. v. Mundipharma AS, Oslo District Court, Norway, Joint cases 16-135025TVI-OTIR/01 and 16-141308TVI-OTIR/01, 8. September 2017 On 8 September 2017, Oslo District Court rendered its decision in a case uniting two separate cases between Orifarm and Mundipharma (patentee) regarding claims of infringement and invalidity of Mundipharma’s patents NO 334290, 332248 and […]


UK – GSK v. Wyeth

Posted: November 23rd, 2017

Glaxosmithkline UK Limited v Wyeth Holdings LLC, High Court, London, UK, 13 January 2017, Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 91 (Pat) This is a judgment from Henry Carr J on preliminary issues relating to the remedies available to Wyeth (referred to as its parent company, Pfizer) for infringement of its patent by GSK. The key […]


UK – Actavis v. ICOS

Posted: November 23rd, 2017

In Actavis v ICOS Lewison, Kitchen and Floyd LLJ held that ICOS’s patent EP (UK) 1,173,181 was invalid for obviousness overturning the first instance decision of Birss J. That decision by the Court of Appeal led to Eli Lilly (the marketing partner of ICOS for tadalafil/Cialis) applying to the Patents Court for an interim injunction […]


UK – OOO Abbott v. Design & Display

Posted: November 22nd, 2017

OOO Abbott and another v Design & Display Limited and another, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, UK, 22 November 2017 The UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered issues arising relating to a determination of an account of profits following an earlier finding that Design & Display had infringed Abbott’s patent for slatted display panels. The Court […]


NL – Basic Holdings v. Ruby Decor

Posted: November 17th, 2017

Basic Holdings ULC v. Ruby Decor B.V. and Nijhof Zelfbouw Baarn B.V., Judge in interlocutory proceedings of the District Court in The Hague, 14 November 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:13109 Interlocutory proceedings. Infringement of patent on artificial fireplaces. Urgent interest, despite cease and desist declaration since the declaration does not cover all (cross border) measures and […]


NL – MSD v. Teva / Supreme Court – indirect infringement of Swiss type claims

Posted: November 14th, 2017

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharma B.V. and Pharmachemie B.V., Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Hague, 3 November 2017, Case no ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 The Supreme Court holds that indirect infringement of a Swiss type claim is possible. A Swiss-type claim is in the form of a purpose bound method claim. If such a […]