EPLAW PATENT BLOG

DE – Glasflaschenanalysesystem (glass bottle analyzing system)

Posted: April 6th, 2010

Glasflaschenanalysesystem (glas bottle analysing system), invalidity proceedings, Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 4 February 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZR 4/07
If the appealing invalidity plaintiff asserted in first instance several invalidity reasons, but substantiates his appeal only with respect to one of these reasons, then

READ MORE

DE – Mundipharma v. Sandoz/Preliminary Injunction Oxycodone patent

Posted: April 2nd, 2010

Mundipharma GmbH v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals GmbH et al, Landgericht Düsseldorf, Germany, 30 March 2010, Case No. 4a O 13/10
In the international dispute between Mundipharma and various suppliers of generic versions of the controlled release oxycodone formulation, OxyContin®, the Landgericht Düsseldorf

READ MORE

NL – Bébécar-Utilidades Para Crianca v. Maxi Miliaan

Posted: April 2nd, 2010

Bébécar-Utilidades Para Crianca LDA v. Maxi Miliaan B.V., The Hague Court of Appeal, The Netherlands, 30 March 2010, Case No. 105.002.137/01, with thanks to Willem Hoorneman, CMS Derks Star Busman
Article 138 EPC gives the patentee the right to limit the patent by amending the claims. The patent as thus limited shall form the basis for the proceedings. In an earlier decision, the Dutch Supreme Court decided that the Dutch limitations on the possibility to amend European patents (the so-called Spiro/Flamco doctrine) could no longer be reconciled with the new EPC (HR Boston/Medinol).
In this decision, the Dutch Court of Appeal states that

READ MORE

NL – Gebr. Ezendam v. Lommers-Van Eijken Tuinbouwmachines

Posted: April 2nd, 2010

Vastgoedmaatschappij Gebr. Ezendam B.V. v. Lommers-Van Eijken Tuinbouwmachines B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 March 2010, Case No. 2009/2379
The District Court of the Hague ruled that Dutch part of Ezendam’s European patent on the use of a cutting cylinder unit, cutting device with cutting cylinder unit for shaping a plant,

READ MORE

EPO – R9/09 – Petition for review rejected as clearly inadmissible because objection to procedural effect was not raised during appeal proceedings as required by Rule 106 EPC

Posted: April 1st, 2010

EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, 22 March 2010, Case No R 9/09
This petition for review concerns decision T71/06 dismissing the appeal of the patent proprietor against the decision of the Opposition Division revoking to revoke its patent. The petition for review was filed on the grounds of Article 112a(2) (c) and (d), i.e. “fundamental violation of the right to be heard” and “any other fundamental procedural defect defined in the Implementing Regulations”

READ MORE

NL – Ratiopharm v. Eli Lilly / Olanzapine patent invalid

Posted: April 1st, 2010

Olanzapine Ratiopharm GmbH, Ratiopharm Nederland B.V., Ratiopharm B.V. v. Eli Lilly and Co Ltd., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 24 March 2010, Case No. 2008/2126, with thanks to Chantal Morel & Moïra Truijens, Klos Morel Vos & Schaap
The Dutch part of Eli Lilly’s patent and SPC re olanzapine was found to be invalid

READ MORE

UK – Schütz (UK) Limited v. Werit UK Limited and Protechna SA

Posted: March 31st, 2010

Schütz (UK) Limited v. Werit UK Limited and Protechna SA, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 31 March 2010, Case No. [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat), with thanks to Stephen Bennett, Lovells
Today, the approved judgment in of Mr Justice Floyd has been published in relation to three patents held by Schütz, relating to intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) for transporting liquids and powders. There are three remarkable features of the action. Werit’s infringement

READ MORE

EPO – No-show at oral proceedings before Board of Appeal in order to save costs may turn out to be expensive

Posted: March 31st, 2010

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.03, 18 November 2009, Decision No. T 212/07, not to be published in OJ, – Ancon CCL Limited (appellant/opponent) v. Normteq B.V. (respondent/patentee)
In a considerable number of cases, parties summoned to oral proceedings before the EPO do not appear. This is not only detrimental to the efficiency of the work of the EPO but may also cause superfluous costs for the adversary. Whereas, as a rule, each party has to bear its own costs, the departments of the EPO may, for reasons of equity order a different apportionment of costs.

READ MORE

FR – Document Security System v. European Central Bank

Posted: March 30th, 2010

Document Security System Inc and Trebuchet Capital Partners v. European Central Bank, Court of Appeal, Paris, France, 17 March 2010, Case No. 08/09140
Document Security System’s EP 0455750 (which later was partially transferred to Trebuchet Capital Partners) relating to anti-counterfeiting technology was invalidated by the French first instance court

READ MORE

NL – Ex parte order based on misleading information

Posted: March 30th, 2010

Franz Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH & Co, KG v. Steenvoorden Constructie B.V. and F.R.Steenvoorden Industrial Equipment B.V., ex parte order of the District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 15 January 2010, Case No. KG RK 10-0055
Franz Grimme owns EP 730 399 (EP 399) for a device for separating potatoes from other materials such as soil, clods, stones, herbage, etc., particularly for potato harvesting machines

READ MORE