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


DE – Einteilige Öse / Inventive Step

Posted: March 24th, 2010

Einteilige Öse, German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Inventive Step, 8 December 2009, Case no. X ZR 65/05
The discovery of a new directive for technical actions shall not be regarded as non-inventive if there is only no impediment to moving from prior art to the


DE – Sektionaltor / Inventive step

Posted: March 24th, 2010

Sektionaltor, German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Inventive Step, 15 September 2009, Case no. X ZR 115/05 There is generally deemed to be no inventive step if, in the eyes of a person skilled in the art, at the time of priority there were no grounds for not manufacturing a product whose form was prior art with […]


EPO – Important amendments to the procedural provisions of the EPC enter into force on April 1, 2010

Posted: March 23rd, 2010

In March 2009, the Administrative Council of the EPO amended the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC). The amended Rules enter into force on April 1, 2010 and are part of the “raising the bar initiative” of the EPO. Reported by Rudolf Teschemacher, Bardehle & Pagenberg. Divisional applications The first group of amendments […]


ES – Eisai & Pfizer v. Mylan / Donepezil / Interim Injunction

Posted: March 22nd, 2010

Eisai Co. Ltd. & Pfizer S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals S.L., Commercial Court No. 5 of Barcelona, Spain, 29 December 2009, Docket No. 581/2009
Commercial Court No. 5 of Barcelona has confirmed its previous decision


NL – Aventis v Apothecon and Ratiopharm / fexofenadine: selection for group of patients

Posted: March 18th, 2010

Aventis Inc v. Apothecon B.V., Ratiopharm B.V. and Ratiopharm Nederland B.V., Appeal, Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 16 March 2010, Case No. 105.007.817/01, with thanks to Mark van Gardingen and Peter Burgers, Brinkhof
Aventis asked for a preliminary injunction based on alleged infringement by the generic companies Apothecon and Ratiopharm -by marketing fexofenadine products as antihistaminics- of its European patent for the ‘Use of terfenadine derivates as antihistaminics in a hepatically impaired patient’.
Like the judge in first instance preliminary injunction proceedings, the Court of Appeal holds that


NL – Philips v. SK Kasetten / FRAND

Posted: March 17th, 2010

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. SK Kassetten GmbH & Co. KG, Infringement, FRAND, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 17 March 2010, Joint Cases No. 316533/HA ZA 08-2522 and 316535/HA ZA 08-2524
SK infringes Philips’ patents re CD and DVD technology. The district Court of the Hague deviates from the German BGH Orange Book decision (BGH 6 May 2009, KZR 39/06). Philips may


FR – Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. INPI / SPC

Posted: March 16th, 2010

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. INPI, Validity French SPC, Cour d’Appel of Paris , 6 November 2009, Case No. 09/06530 (with English translation), with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés
The Cour d’Appel of Paris dismissed the appeal of Daiichi Sankyo against the decision of the French Patent Office (INPI) to reject its French SPC. “Considering that


NL – Safeway GmbH v. Kedge Holding B.V.

Posted: March 11th, 2010

Safeway GmbH v. Kedge Holding B.V., declaration of non-infringement, The Hague District Court, The Netherlands, 10 March 2010, Case No. 337089 / 09-1591


EU – Monsanto v Cefetra

Posted: March 9th, 2010

Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV and others, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, Court of Justice of the EU, 9 March 2010, Case No. C-428/08
Today, Advocate General Mengozzi of the Court of Justice of the EU has rendered his opinion in the much debated Monsanto v. Cefetra case.
After examining the wording and aims of the directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, Advocate General Mengozzi