EPLAW PATENT BLOG

DE – ohne Stichwort (“without keyword”)

Posted: August 25th, 2010

Federal German Supreme Court, 29 July 2010, Case No. Xa ZR 68/06 and Case No. Xa ZR 69/06 The right to be heard guaranteed under art. 103 (1) of the German Constitution, is not infringed if the Supreme Court departs from the conclusions drawn by the court appointed expert, when this is done with a […]

READ MORE

DE “Fälschungssicheres Dokument” (“Unforgeable Document”)

Posted: August 25th, 2010

“Unforgeable Document”, Federal German Supreme Court, 8 July 2010, Case No. Xa ZR 124/07 The Supreme Court held in the decision “Unforgeable Document” that the original disclosure only comprises information which is “clearly and unambiguously” derivable for a person skilled in the art. Information resulting from farther reaching conclusions, which the skilled person might only […]

READ MORE

EU – Opinion on the compatibility of the proposed European Patent Court System with European Treaty Law

Posted: August 19th, 2010

Request of the Council of the European Union for an Opinion on the compatibility of the proposed European Patent Court System with European Treaty Law, Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion of the A-G, No. 1/09, 2 July 2010, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés for sending in the translation * […]

READ MORE

DE – Crimpwerkzeug III (crimping tool III)

Posted: August 19th, 2010

Crimpwerkzeug III – Federal Supreme Court, Germany, 29. June 2010, Case No. X ZR 193/03 The Federal Supreme Court had to decide on the admissibility to file an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court in patent infringement proceedings. The court held that the mere argument, the lower court which has issued the attacked ruling would […]

READ MORE

DE – Bidding in Bulgaria / Rome II

Posted: August 12th, 2010

Ausschreibung in Bulgarien (“Bidding in Bulgaria”),Federal Supreme Court, First Senate, Germany, 11 February, 2010, published on August 3, 2010, Docket No. I ZR 85/08
The First Senate of the Federal Supreme Court held that even if two German companies are the only competitors in a foreign market within the EU, the applicable law shall be …

READ MORE

NL – Kedge v. Aabo & Safeway

Posted: August 10th, 2010

Kedge v. Aabo & Safeway, President of the District Court of the Hague, The Netherlands, 5 August 2010, Case No. KG ZA 10-721 In its decision d.d. 10 March 2010 (which can be read here), the Court of the Hague ruled that the "fall protections" manufactured by Safeway did not infringe upon Kedge's European patent […]

READ MORE

DE – Polymerisierbare Zementmischung

Posted: August 4th, 2010

Polymerisierbare Zementmischung, Federal Court of Justice, Germany, 11 May 2010, Case no. X ZR 51/06 As the nullity action in the first instance was only based on one or more ground(s) set out in Art. 138 (1) EPC the inclusion of a further ground for nullity in the appeal represents an amendment to the claim […]

READ MORE

EU – Final petition of the Advocate-General / Jodosulfuron

Posted: July 30th, 2010

Final petition of the Advocate-General, Case C-229/09, Jodosulfuron, June 17, 2010, by dr. Christopher Brückner, Bardehle & Pagenberg The German Patent Court has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Art. 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation 1610/96 regarding the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products. This […]

READ MORE

UK – Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services

Posted: July 29th, 2010

Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 July 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 819 The Court of Appeal has allowed Electromagnetic Services’ (EMGS) appeal of the decision of the Patents Court to revoke two of EMGS’ patents relating to the use of CSEM (Controlled Source Electromagnetic) surveying to detect oil and gas deposits […]

READ MORE

UK – Abbott v. Medinol

Posted: July 27th, 2010

Abbott Laboratories Limited v. Medinol Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 1 July 2010, [2010] EWHC 1731 (Pat)
The Patents Court has dismissed Abbott’s application for specific disclosure of documents in an action concerning medical stents.
Abbott commenced revocation proceedings in respect of three patents owned by Medinol: EP (UK) 0 846 449, EP (UK) 1 181 901 and EP (UK) 1 181 902. Abbott also requested a declaration of non-infringement of the three patents in respect of its Vision, Xience and Multi-Link 8 stents. Medinol counterclaimed for infringement of EP (UK) 1 181 902.
Abbott requested…

READ MORE