EPLAW PATENT BLOG

ECJ – Can a supplementary protection certificate based on a provisional marketing authorisation be granted?

Posted: June 22nd, 2010

Opinion of the Advocate General in Jodosulfuron published 17 June 2010 (Case 229/09, Lovells v. Bayer CropScience AG, referred by the German Federal Patent Court), with thanks to Christopher Brückner, Bardehle & Pagenberg for the head note and summary This case concerns the interpretation of Article 3 (1) b of Council Regulation (EC) 1610/96 regarding the creation […]

READ MORE

CH – further step to Swiss Federal Patent Court

Posted: June 17th, 2010

Switzerland – A further step towards the establishment of the Swiss Federal Patent Court has been taken Last year, the Swiss Parliament adopted the Law on the Federal Patent Court which will be the central Swiss court of first instance competent to decide in patent litigation cases instead of the commercial courts in the individual […]

READ MORE

DE – Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung (dynamic document generation)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung (dynamic document generation), appeal on prosecution proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 22 April 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZB 20/08
Regarding the technical nature of a method in the field of computer implemented inventions and thus its patentability, the Federal Supreme Court ruled:
A method concerning the direct interaction of elements of a data processing system is always of technical nature …

READ MORE

DE – Fettsäurezusammensetzung (fatty acid composition)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Fettsäurezusammensetzung (fatty acid composition), invalidity proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 15 April 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZR 28/08
As to obviousness, the Federal Supreme Court ruled in the field of drugs:
For the person skilled in the art who deals with the technical problem to provide …

READ MORE

DE – Telekommunikationseinrichtung (telecommunication device)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Telekommunikationseinrichtung (telecommunication device), invalidity proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 15 April 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZR 69/06
As to obviousness and the references the person skilled in the art would refer to, respectively combine, the Federal Supreme Court ruled:
If there traditionally was a conceptual gap …

READ MORE

DE- Nabenschaltung II (internal gear hub II)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE- Nabenschaltung II (internal gear hub II), infringement proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 18 March 2010, Docket No. Xa ZR 74/09
According to Art. II § 3 1st paragraph IntPatÜG a translation of a European patent has to be provided to the German Patent and Trademark Office within 3-months of the publication of the …

READ MORE

DE – Nabenschaltung I (internal gear hub I)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Nabenschaltung I (internal gear hub I), invalidity proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 16 March 2010, Docket No. X ZR 47/06
A motion for a declaratory decision according to Art. II § 3 2nd paragraph IntPatÜG is not to be filed with the invalidity courts but with the German Patent and Trademark Office.
Under German Law, a European patent has no effect in the territory of Germany …

READ MORE

BE – Iverness Medical / Ulti Med Products – infringement and five year time bar

Posted: June 14th, 2010

Iverness Medical Switzerland v. Ulti Med Products, Commercial court of Ghent, 27 May 2010, Docket number A/08/2023
The Ghent commercial court finds that Ulti Med Products has infringed European patent 291 194 B2 for a specific analytical test device and an analytical method in which this test device is used. Ulti Med did not deny having commercialized the contested product (“D Dimer Test”), but said that …

READ MORE

BE – Teva v. Sepracor / invalidity

Posted: June 11th, 2010

Teva / Sepracor, Commercial court of Antwerp, 11 December 2009, Docket number A/08/5474
The Antwerp commercial court has annulled the Belgian tier of Sepracor’s European patent (EP 663 828) for “compositions for treating allergic disorders using (-) cetirizine”, as well as the ensuing SPC for “levocetirizin dihydrocholorid”. Applying (a hybrid version of) the problem-solution approach, the court found that the invention of EP ‘828 was obvious for the skilled person, who was held …

READ MORE

NL – Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Sandoz

Posted: June 9th, 2010

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sandoz B.V., the preliminary injunction judge of the District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands, 4 June 2010, Case No. 363158 / KG ZA 10-427
Merck states that Sandoz infringes its EP 752 and SPC 990041 by marketing a dorzolamide/timolol-product (anti-glaucoma eye drops). The preliminary injunction judge rules that the fact that EP 752 (in amended form) was invalidated in parallel UK proceedings is not sufficient in itself for the judge in preliminary injunction proceedings to rule that there is a non-negligible …

READ MORE