EPLAW PATENT BLOG

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

Posted: October 14th, 2011

Brussels Commercial Court, 3 October 2011, Ratiopharm (Teva) and Tiefenbacher v. Lundbeck, joined cases A.R. 7.271/08 and A.R. 8.245/08 Brussels court holds escitalopram to be the same product as citalopram under Articles 3(c)-(d) of the SPC-Regulation. Lundbeck commercialises two antidepressants called Cipramil® and Sipralexa®.  Both drugs inhibit the re-uptake of serotonine by the brain. The […]

READ MORE

NL – Potveer v. Total Systems

Posted: October 14th, 2011

Potveer B.V. v. Total Systems B.V., interlocutory proceedings, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 6 October 2011, Case No. 399580 KG ZA 11-902 Potveer holds the patent NL 1027378 (“NL 378”) regarding an apparatus for debulbing bulbuos plants. Total Systems is a competitor of Potveer and uses a similar apparatus. Potveer accuses Total Systems of […]

READ MORE

EU – Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute

Posted: October 11th, 2011

EU – Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute– Revised Presidency text Read the new version here.

READ MORE

UK – Halliburton Energy Services v. Comptroller-General of Patents

Posted: October 7th, 2011

Halliburton Energy Services Inc . v. Comptroller-General of Patents, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 5 October 2011, Case No. [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat) Halliburton Energy Services Inc. appealed the decision of Mr Thorpe, the Deputy Director acting for the Comptroller rejecting four patent applications before the UK IPO.  They were […]

READ MORE

BE – Bollegraaf v. Wagensveld

Posted: October 5th, 2011

Bollegraaf Recycling Machinery B.V, and Grumbach GmbH & CO. KG v. Stora Enso Langerbrugge N.V. and Wagensveld B.V., Ghent Court of Appeal, Belgium, 26 September 2011, with thanks to Carl de Meyer and Carina Gommers, Hoyng Monegier for sending in the case and summary On 26 September 2011, the Ghent appellate court decided on the […]

READ MORE

EPLAW – The Unified Patent Court: EPLAW Resolution on the Draft Agreement

Posted: September 28th, 2011

The Unified Patent Court: EPLAW Resolution on the Draft Agreement 13751/11 of September 2, 2011 I. Introduction The European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), comprising lawyers with many years of experience in European patent litigation, has been following closely the preparatory work for and the legal discussions regarding the creation of a European patent court system. […]

READ MORE

EU – The Future Unified Patent Litigation System in the European Union

Posted: September 28th, 2011

The Future Unified Patent Litigation System in the European Union, Academy of European Law's conference, organised in the framework of the Polish EU Presidency of the EU Council, Friday 23 September 2011 For an overview of the conference read the IP Kat's report here. One of the speeches was held by Prof. Winfried Tilmann. It […]

READ MORE

NL – Eli Lilly v. Ratiopharm / Olanzapine

Posted: September 28th, 2011

Eli Lilly and Company Limited v. Ratiopharm GmbH, Ratiopharm Nederland B.V. & Ratiopharm B.V., Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 27 September 2011, Case No. 200.069.117, with thanks to Bert Oosting and Wenda Oudejans, Hogan Lovells for providing the judgment and summary The Court of Appeal The Hague held Eli Lilly's patent and SPC […]

READ MORE

NL – BRS v Portal

Posted: September 23rd, 2011

BRS Excell Glass B.V. v. Portal S.A.(Portal Nederland) and Brakel/Atmos B.V., Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 20 september 2011, case no. 200.006.993/02. BRS co-owns a patent relating to a method for the production of curved glazing. Portal argues that the patented method is not novel, because the closest priot art disclosed all steps […]

READ MORE

HU – Repeatedly filed request for preliminary injunction

Posted: September 16th, 2011

Repeatedly filed request for preliminary injuction, Metropolitan Court, 11 July 2011, Budapest, Hungary Metropolitan Court rules on Repeatedly Filed Request for Preliminary Injunction After the rejection of the first preliminary injunction request due to lack of sufficient probability of infringement the Patentee filed a repeated request for preliminary injunction together with filing new experimental analysis […]

READ MORE