EPLAW PATENT BLOG

NL – Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Pharmachemie and Mosadex

Posted: January 6th, 2011

This case concerns the patent of Janssen for a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of a specified formula and a blood pressure reducing agent (claim 4 of the patent). Pharmachemie markets a product containing nebivolol. Nebivolol consists of l-nebivolol (or: RSSS) which is the specified compound, and d-nebivolol, which is the other compound (or: SRRR) and is specified in claim 6 (dependent on claim 4) of the patent.

READ MORE

DE – Fahrzeugsteuer (Vehicle Tax)

Posted: January 6th, 2011

Once more, the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) decided that the subsidiarity principle as stated in section 81 par. 2 PatG (German Patent Act) is also applicable with respect to European patents and opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and is not limited to German patents and opposition proceedings before the BPatG. Therefore, independent of whether the case is about a German patent or a German part of a European patent, according to the subsidiarity principle a nullity action against the patent is inadmissible as long as an opposition against the patent may still be filed or is still pending.

READ MORE

DE – Steuervorrichtung (Control Device)

Posted: January 6th, 2011

The inventor acquires a right in a confidentially materialized teaching of a technical nature when such teaching was made the subject matter of a patent application, independently of the patentability of that subject matter. The applicant or owner of the patent has to surrender to the inventor the value of its use of the invention which he has made in the preferential situation of having knowledge of the invention, and/or of being the applicant or owner of a corresponding patent.

READ MORE

FR – Actavis v. Merck

Posted: January 5th, 2011

The judgment handed down on 28 September 2010 by the Tribunal de grande instance, Paris in Actavis v. Merck decides that a dosage regime is not patentable because it is “plainly not” a second therapeutic application: “A specific dosage for the treatment of an illness constitutes neither a first nor a second therapeutic application but simply an indication of the range within which this substance is efficacious so as to treat such or such an illness in light of the tests and research completed and explained in the patent.”

READ MORE

NL – MBrands v. Kubus

Posted: January 1st, 2011

This dispute concerns Kubus’ Dutch patent for a trapeze belt hook device, to be used for water sports. MBrands sells trapeze belts and claims the invalidity of the patent. The MBrand products are marked “Patent Pend. Nr. 1035314”, although this application has already been cancelled. Kubus therefore counterclaims, arguing that the patent marking on the Mbrands products is misleading.

READ MORE

HU – London Agreement entering into force in Hungary on 1st January, 2011

Posted: January 1st, 2011

The London Agreement will enter into force for Hungary on 1st January, 2011. Joining the London Agreement will bring along significant cost reductions related to the validation of European patents in Hungary.

READ MORE

EPO – European patents may become valid in Morocco

Posted: December 27th, 2010

European patents may become valid in Morocco

READ MORE

NL – Solvay v. Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe / referral CJEU re EEX

Posted: December 22nd, 2010

The present case is a follow up of the interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague d.d 15 September 2010 (read the previous post here), in which the court decided to refer questions on the correct interpretation of ‘irreconcilable decisions’ in the context of Article 6 (1) EEX and the correct interpretation of Article 22 (4) EEX to the Court of Justice EU.

READ MORE

DE – German Supreme Court “Fentanyl TTS”

Posted: December 20th, 2010

In the case at issue the preamble of independent claim 1 stipulated that the claimed system comprised “at least one Fentanyl containing matrix layer” whereas the characterizing portion only addressed the concentration of this active compound in the “matrix layers” of the claimed system. In light of this inconsistency (singular/plural), the Federal Patents Court reduced the scope of independent claim 1 to systems comprising multiple matrix layers. In sum, according to the Federal Patents Court the characterizing portion of the claim takes precedence over the preamble.

READ MORE

NL – Vacu Products v. WMF

Posted: December 19th, 2010

Vacu Products is the owner of a European Patent for a tool for removing the peel and the core of fruit, primarily pineappels.Vacu Products sued its competitor WMF AG for patent infringement in the Netherlands, claiming that WMF had sold infringing products via resellers in Rotterdam and Boxtel. In previous patent infringement proceedings in Germany, the court had ruled that the product sold by WMF did no infringe Vacu Products’ patent.

READ MORE