EPLAW PATENT BLOG

SE – Hospira v. Aventis

Posted: February 28th, 2012

Hospira UK Limited and Hospira Enterprises B.V. v. Aventis Pharma S.A., District Court of Stockholm, 7 October 2011, Docket No. T 19169-10The Hospira companies held the marketing authorization for and imported the pharmaceutical Docetaxel Hospira for Sweden. Aventis Pharam S.A. held three EP patents for Sweden and had in other jurisdictions claimed that Docetaxel Hospira […]

READ MORE

SE – Time Bar for Damage Claims Clarified

Posted: February 27th, 2012

The Swedish Supreme Court Clarifies the Law on Time Bar for Damages Claims, by Erik Ficks, Roschier The caseThe Swedish Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to provide guidance on the issue of time bar for damages claims in patent infringement cases (NJA 2011 s. 270). The case concerns a long-standing patent dispute between Lely […]

READ MORE

SE – Occlutech v. AGA

Posted: February 27th, 2012

Occlutech GmbH v. AGA Medical Corporation, AGA Medical Corporation v. Occlutech International AB and Tor Peters (private person), District Court of Stockholm, 4 March 2011, Docket No. T 18865-07 and T 4110-08 (joint cases)Occlutech GmbH requested that the District Court should declare that it is free to sell its product in Sweden, irrespective of AGA […]

READ MORE

UK – Queensland v Comptroller General of Patents / SPC

Posted: February 24th, 2012

University of Queensland & CSL Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, High Court, 14 February 2012, Case Number: CH/2010/APP/0620, Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 223 (Pat) The decision of the CJEU in Medeva (noted here) has been widely commented upon and has now been applied by the High Court.  In a related reference the CJEU […]

READ MORE

FR – Biogaran v. Negma: Compensation of damages caused by an interim injunction on a patent later found to be invalid

Posted: February 24th, 2012

Biogaran v. Laboratoire Medidom, Laboratoires Negma, Tribunal de grande instance (3rd chamber, 3rd division), Paris, 27 January 2012, Case No. 09/17355, with thanks to Sabine Age and Marta Mendes Moreira, Veron & Associes, for sending in the judgment, summary and translation in English A patentee who has obtained an interim injunction from a court to […]

READ MORE

BE – Lundbeck v. Ratiopharm (Teva) and Tiefenbacher (escitalopram)

Posted: February 21st, 2012

H. Lundbeck A/S v. Alfred e. & CO. Tiefenbacher GmbH, Ratiopharm GmbH, Ratiopharm Belgium N.V and Teva Pharma Belgium N.V., Court of Appeal Brussels, Belgium, 14 February 2012, Case No. 2011/AR/2821, with thanks to Steven Cattoor, Hoyng Monegier, for providing the case and a head note. As reported earlier (see here), on 3 October 2011 […]

READ MORE

UK – MedImmune v Novartis

Posted: February 21st, 2012

MedImmune Limited v Novartis Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited & another, High Court, 3 February 2012, Case No. HC11C01304, Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 181 (Pat) On Friday 11 February 2012, Mr Justice Arnold handed down his second judgment in the ongoing litigation between MedImmune and Novartis.    In his first judgment in July 2011 (which may be […]

READ MORE

SE – AstraZeneca v. Krka (esomeprazole)

Posted: February 21st, 2012

AstraZeneca AB v. Krka Sverige AB, District Court of Stockholm, 4 February 2011, Docket No. T 16565-10AstraZeneca raised a patent infringement claim against Krka's product Esomeprazol Krka and requested an injunction and damages as well as a search order for further evidence of the alleged infringement in October 2011. The circumstances are that Krka was […]

READ MORE

EPO – Appeal not filed in the name of the true party: Can the deficiency be remedied? Referral to EBA

Posted: February 16th, 2012

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07, decision of January 30, 2012, to be published in OJ EPO   – Zenon Technology Partnership v. Siemens Industry, Inc. In these times of mergers and acquisitions, representatives in proceedings before the EPO sometimes lose track of who is the true party to the proceedings. A good example is the […]

READ MORE

BE – Supreme court upholds traditional Belgian prima facie validity test in PI proceedings

Posted: February 14th, 2012

Novartis v. Mylan, Supreme Court (“Hof van Cassatie/Court de Cassation”), Belgium, 5 January 2012, Docket number C.11.0101.N, The Belgian Supreme Court has confirmed an earlier decision of the Brussels court of appeal whereby Novartis saw its claim for a preliminary injunction against Mylan’s intended commercialisation of a generic sustained release formulation of fluvastatin granted. In […]

READ MORE