Posted: May 14th, 2010
Enlarged Board of Appeal, 12 May 2010, Case no. G 3/008, with thanks to Willem Hoyng, Howrey "T 424/03, Microsoft does deviate from a view expressed in T 1173/97, IBM, concerning whether a claim to a program on a computer-readable medium necessarily avoids exclusion from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC. However this is a legitimate […]READ MORE
Posted: May 14th, 2010
Personality Hair Great Lengths B.V. and Great Lengths International S.R.L., v. Euro Hair Fashion Holding B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 12 mei 2010, HA-ZA 09-874, with thanks to Willem Hoorneman, CMS Derks Star Busmann
Dispute regarding a Dutch patent for a tool to remove hair extensions. Great Lengths is admissible in its invalidity claims, even though it did not …
Posted: May 13th, 2010
Pullman-Ermator AB v. Dustcontrol International AB, patent invalidity etc., Svea Court of Appeal, Sweden, 27 April 2010, Case No. T 5824-08 The case concerned a patent for a filter cartridge suitable for use in the outlet of a cyclone dust separator. The filter cartridge was characterized by the filter body being partly surrounded by a […]READ MORE
Posted: May 12th, 2010
"The European Commission has published draft Regulations and Guidelines for the assessment of co-operation agreements between competitors, so called horizontal co-operation agreements. The objective of these proposals is to update and further clarify the application of competition rules in this area and to ensure their continuing relevance in the changing economy of today. Interested parties […]READ MORE
Posted: May 7th, 2010
Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited v. Comptroller-General of Patents, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 6 May 2010, Case No.  EWHC 976 (Pat)
On 6 May 2010, the English High Court handed down its judgment in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited v. Comptroller-General of Patents upholding a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office not to grant a supplementary protection certificate for a product containing the active ingredient melatonin, on the basis that the condition set out in Article 3(d) of regulation 1768/92/EEC was not satisfied.
Posted: May 7th, 2010
H. Lundbeck A/S v. Pharma Change ApS, bailiff's court (enforcement court) Elsinore, Denmark, 16 April 2010, Docket no. 9921/2009 A Danish bailiff's court granted Lundbeck's application for an interim injunction against the wholesaler Pharma Change ApS, selling and distributing a generic escitalopram product manufactured by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in India. Having obtained in the summer […]READ MORE
Posted: May 6th, 2010
Data Processing System, invalidity proceedings, Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 20 April 2010, Docket No. X. ZR 27/07
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the European Patent 618 540 owned by Microsoft and concerning the problem to operate programs which are solely capable to process only files with comparably short file names under operation systems which in contrast are able to operate almost indefinitely long file names.
Posted: May 4th, 2010
Kraftfahrzeugkarosserie, German Federal Court of Justice, 18 February 2010, File No. Xa ZR 52/08, with thanks to Bernhard Arnold, Arnold-Ruess
Depicting an element in a drawing which is referred to in the description or the patent claims can be sufficient to disclose an element as being part of the invention. The relevant test is whether the construction according to the elements of the invention taking into account the overall disclosure in the view of skilled man appears as a possible embodiment of the invention according to the patent application.
Posted: May 3rd, 2010
Ratiopharm GmbH, Ratiopharm Nederland B.V. v. Sanofi-Aventis, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 April 2010, Case No. 342791 / HA ZA 09-2375
The District Court of The Hague invalidated Sanofi-Aventis’ patent in invalidity proceedings inititated against Sanofi-Aventis by Ratiopharm. The patent related – in short – to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination of active substances, i.e. aspirine and clopidogrel. The
Posted: April 29th, 2010
EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.02, 27 April 2010, Decision No. T 1423/07, not to be published in OJ, – Cyclic Amine derivative/BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM VETMEDICA GmbH
The applicant filed a first European application on which a patent was granted. Claiming the priority of the first application, he filed a second European application which was refused by the Examining Division on the grounds that the claims on file were identical to the claims granted in the first application from which priority was claimed. Reference was made to the Guidelines for Examination according to which patents in the name of the same applicant must not contain claims of substantially identical scope.