EPLAW PATENT BLOG

NL – Grimme v. Steenvoorden

Posted: April 29th, 2010

Franz Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH & CO, KG v. Steenvoorden Constructie B.V. and Steenvoorden Industrial Equipment B.V., The Hague District Court, 20 April 2010, Case No. 357005 / KG ZA 10-70
Following a previous ex parte injunction against Steenvoorden (read that decision here), the District Court in The Hague found that Steenvoorden

READ MORE

EU – Comments on the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in case C-428/08 (Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV and others)

Posted: April 29th, 2010

Comments on the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in case C-428/08 (Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV and others), by Willem Hoyng and Frank Eijsvogels, Howrey
On 9 December 2010, Advocate General Mengozzi delivered his opinion in the matter of Monsanto v. Cefetra c.s.. In this paper we will first give an overview of the relevant facts. Subsequently we will make a few comments on this opinion whereby we focus on the proposed answers to the first two questions that the District Court of The Hague referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

READ MORE

Third party contributions

Posted: April 28th, 2010

The content of the EPLAW Patent Blog is mainly provided by our Editorial Board, an international team of enthusiastic patent specialists. However, we welcome third party contributions. People are invited to send us their patent judgments. The first one to send in a case will be recognized ('With thanks to…') on the blog. By sending […]

READ MORE

NL – B + R Beheer B.V. v. Van den Berg Beton Kelders B.V.

Posted: April 28th, 2010

B + R Beheer B.V. v. Van den Berg Beton Kelders B.V., preliminary injunction proceedings, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 27 April 2010, Docket No. 361878 / KG ZA 10-360
Preliminary injunction proceedings concerning prefab concrete basements (so-called ‘TSS units’). The judge rules that there is a non-negligible chance that the (Dutch) patent of B + R Beheer will be invalidated in proceedings on the merits. Even if the patent would considered to be valid, Van den Berg would not infringe, since the method applied by Van den Berg is a non-inventive variant of the state of the art.

READ MORE

EPO – Convention on Biological Diversity and the exception to patentability for inventions which are contrary to “ordre public” or morality

Posted: April 22nd, 2010

EPO, Opposition Division, decision dated 20 April 2010, revoking European patent 1 429 795 (open to appeal)
European patent 1 429 795 is directed to a method for producing an extract from Pelargonium sidoides and/or Pelargonium reniforme, characterized by subjecting the roots of the plants to certain steps in order to obtain the extract. The description mentions that Pelargonium sidoides has been traditionally used in Southern Africa as a medicament for a long time.

READ MORE

UK – HTC Corporation v. Yozmot 33 Limited

Posted: April 21st, 2010

HTC Corporation v. Yozmot 33 Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 20 April 2010, [2010] EWHC 786 (Pat)
The Patents Court has held Yozmot’s patent EP (UK) 0 909 499 to be partially valid.
Yozmot’s patent concerned a boosted loudspeaker for a mobile telephone. Yozmot alleged

READ MORE

EU/EPO/DE – Recent relevant cases

Posted: April 21st, 2010

A set of recent relevant EU, EPO and German cases, head notes and summaries in English (listed below) has been added to the blog. The posts are published on the date of the judgment. With thanks to Tilman Müller-Stoy, Bardehle Pagenberg
New cases

READ MORE

Young EPLAW – Programme and Registration

Posted: April 20th, 2010

* Reminder * "EPLAW is pleased to present the program for the Young EPLAW Congress in Brussels on Monday May 17, 2010. The congress is open for all patent lawyers up to 36 years old. This day offers an excellent opportunity to learn and discuss about some current issues in European patent law. It is […]

READ MORE

AT – Nebivolol

Posted: April 15th, 2010

Nebivolol, limitation of patent claims, Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) 19 November, 2009, Case No. 17 Ob 24/09t
A limitation of a patent claim is only admissible if it leads to a narrower scope of protection and does not go beyond the original disclosure of the patent. Under these conditions, the patent owner is free to base an infringement action on a limited version of its claims, irrespectively of initiating formal limitation proceedings.

READ MORE

UK – Betson Medical (Ireland) Limited v. Comptroller General of Patents

Posted: April 13th, 2010

Betson Medical (Ireland) Limited v. Comptroller General of Patents, High Court of Justice, Patents Court, London, UK, 31 March 2010, Case No. [2010] EWHC 687 (Pat) The Patents Court has rejected Betson Medical’s appeal of the decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to reject Betson Medical’s application to restore EP (UK) 0 957 […]

READ MORE