EPLAW PATENT BLOG

NL – Landor & Hawa International v. Dugros and Duifhuizen

Posted: June 29th, 2010

Landor & Hawa International Ltd v. Dugros BV and Duifhuizen BV, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 June 2010, Case. no. KG ZA 10-660. This judgment in summary proceedings concerns a European patent on expandable suitcases. The suitcase according to the patent consists of curvilinear base and lid portions which are both enforced with stiffening […]

READ MORE

FR – Institut Pasteur v. Siemens

Posted: June 29th, 2010

Institut Pasteur v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Court of First Instance, Paris, France, 28 may 2010, Docket No.: 08/08679, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés for sending in the case and the translation
In this case dealing with detection kits for the quantitative diagnosis of HIV, the First Instance Court of Paris recently decided on (i) file wrapper estoppel and claim construction in light of Article 69 EPC in France as well as (ii) the consequences of claim construction on patent infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents. …

READ MORE

UK – Cook Biotech v. Edwards Lifesciences / Appeal

Posted: June 28th, 2010

Cook Biotech Incorporated v. Edwards Lifesciences AG, High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 June 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 718
“This appeal concerns the validity of European Patent (UK) 1 255 510 (“the Patent”), which was filed on 31 January 2001. The Patent is called “stent” valves …

READ MORE

NL – Monsanto v. Cefetra and others / settled

Posted: June 28th, 2010

Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra B.V., Cefetra Feed Service B.V., Cefetra Futures B.V. and v. The State of Argentina and Miquel Santiago Campos (secretary of state agriculture) and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Vopak Agencies Rotterdam B.V. and Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Docket Decision, The Hague District Court, The Netherlands, 23 June 2010, Case No. HA ZA 05-2885 and HA ZA 06-2576
Docket decision, showing that Monsanto withdrew …

READ MORE

UK – The Budget reopens the “Patent Box”

Posted: June 28th, 2010

The Budget reopens the “Patent Box”, by Paul England, Simmons & Simmons The UK Emergency Budget 2010 was released on Tuesday 22 June 2010.  Hidden away in Table 2.4 on Page 55 of the full Budget document is the previous administration's proposal to introduce a “Patent Box”, which is one of the “measures announced by […]

READ MORE

DK – Power Stow v. RASN and others

Posted: June 25th, 2010

Power Stow A/S v. RASN A/S, John Bean Technology Corporation and SAS Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Maritime and Commercial Court, Denmark, 21 May 2010, Case No. T-5-08
The court ruled that the claims of the patent-in-suit must be read in light of …

READ MORE

FR – Deprat Jean v. Zurfluh Feller / ‘saisie-contrefaçon’

Posted: June 25th, 2010

La Société Deprat Jean, S.A., Monsieur Paul Schlagmuller v. La société Zurfluh Feller, S.A.S., Paris Court of Appeal, 3 March 2010, Cace No. 07/14488
In this decision, the Court of Appeal in Paris held that nothing precludes a patent right holder to request a ‘saisie-contrefaçon’ after the expiration of a patent, in order to establish infringing acts which occurred prior to the expiration of the patent (the First Instance decision was reversed on this question).

READ MORE

UK – KCI v. S&N

Posted: June 23rd, 2010

KCI Licensing Inc, KCI Medical Resources and KCI Medical Limited v. Smith & Nephew Plc, Smith & Nephew Inc, Smith & Nephew Medical Limited and Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 23 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat)
The Patents Court has upheld European Patents (UK) Nos. 0 777 504 B1 (“‘504”) and 0 853 950 B1 (“‘950”) and found both to have been infringed by S&N.
KCI’s Patents concern apparatus for use in negative pressure wound therapy (‘950 is a divisional of ‘540). This therapy, involving the use of vacuums, has been found to reduce bacterial infection and to promote tissue growth, and thus to help heal wounds which were difficult to treat by previous methods.
S&N sought to invalidate the Patents on the basis that they were not entitled to priority …

READ MORE

UK – Nampak Cartons Limited v. Rapid Action Packaging Limited

Posted: June 22nd, 2010

Nampak Cartons Limited v. Rapid Action Packaging Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 18 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1458 (Pat) The Patents Court has dismissed an appeal against the Patent Office Hearing Officer’s decision to uphold Rapid Action’s UK Patent No. 2 397 593. Rapid Action’s patent concerns packaging for […]

READ MORE

UK – Occlutech GmbH v. AGA Medical Corporation & Ors

Posted: June 22nd, 2010

Occlutech GmbH v. AGA Medical Corporation & Ors, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK, 22 June, 2010
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Patents Court finding non-infringement of EP(UK) 808138 (the “Patent”).
The Appeal concerned whether there was an infringement of the Patent for a medical device used for occlusion of blood vessels and other body lumens. The Patent claims a device comprising a metal fabric formed of braided metal strands characterized by clamps adapted to clamp the strands at the opposed ends of the device. The infringement turned on …

READ MORE