EPLAW PATENT BLOG

UK – Curt G Joa v. Fameccanica Data

Posted: May 24th, 2017

Curt G Joa, Inc v Fameccanica Data SpA, UK, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, Hacon HHJ, 24 May 2017 This case concerned a patent for “disposable absorbent garments”, including nappies/diapers and adult incontinence garments. By the time the case came to trial, the patentee had made both unconditional and conditional applications to amend the claims of […]

READ MORE

UK – OOO Abbott v. Design & Display / account of profits

Posted: May 24th, 2017

(1) OOO Abbott (2) Godfrey Victor Chasmer v (1) Design & Display Limited (2) Eureka Display Limited, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, (HHJ Hacon), London, UK, 1 March 2017, Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 932 (IPEC) In this judgment, HHJ Hacon determined issues which had been remitted from the Court of Appeal (see here) relating to […]

READ MORE

News – Unitary Patent Package Kick Off Conference

Posted: May 23rd, 2017

On 8 & 9 February 2018 the Unitary Patent Package Kick Off Conference will take place in The Hague, The Netherlands Euroforum currently is organizing the UPP Kick Off Conference where you will hear (cited from the blurb): The views from the most important appointed judges of the UPC and the Court of Justice. A report […]

READ MORE

EPLAW – Young EPLAW UPC Moot 2017

Posted: May 22nd, 2017

The 2017 Young EPLAW Congress gave 20 volunteers the opportunity to participate in the project launched in 2013, called “How to plead a case” and kindly hosted again by HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER Brussels. During this mock case, two panels of two Board members sitting as mock judges each heard five sets of plaintiffs and defendants […]

READ MORE

News – Event: Quo vadis, SPC?

Posted: May 18th, 2017

On 31 May 2017 the FORUM Institut für Management hosts an SPC related event in Amsterdam, entitled: Quo vadis, SPC? Dr. Christopher Brückner discusses the SPC referrals to the CJEU. He will put the decisions in context and will show the consequences for national court practice and for the application practice. Topics Laying the ground: referrals […]

READ MORE

UK – Sandoz and Hexal v. Searle and Janssen Sciences Ireland

Posted: May 16th, 2017

(1) SANDOZ LIMITED (2) HEXAL AG V (1) G.D. SEARLE LLC (2) JANSSEN SCIENCES IRELAND UC The UK Patents Court has recently handed down its decision in Sandoz v G.D. Searle.  Arnold J held that Searle’s SPC for darunavir (Prezista) is valid and refused to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling […]

READ MORE

FR – Core v. LG

Posted: May 12th, 2017

Core Wireless Licensing (“Core”) asserted five patents related to UTMS, GSM, GPRS, EGPRS and LTE against LG Electronics France (“LGEF”) and LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEI”). In a ruling dated 17 April 2015, the Paris Court of First Instance ruled that none of the patents were essential to the standards and dismissed Core’s claims. In a […]

READ MORE

NL – Sun v. Novartis / Supreme Court

Posted: May 8th, 2017

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (Europe) B.V. v. Novartis AG, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 14 April 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:HR:2017:692 Preliminary injunction proceedings. Patent for second medical indication. Swiss-type claim. Novartis owns EP 1 296 689 with a Swiss type claim for use of zoledronic acid in the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of […]

READ MORE

UK – Synthon B.V. v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Posted: May 8th, 2017

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its decision in Synthon BV v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, upholding Birss J’s decision at first instance that Teva’s patent relating to glatiramer acetate (“GA”) (EP (UK) 2 361 924) was valid but that claim 20 and dependent claims were invalid for added matter. GA is a mixture […]

READ MORE

UK – Teva UK Limited & Ors v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation

Posted: May 1st, 2017

(1) Teva UK Limited, (2) Accord Healthcare Limited, (3) Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Arnold J held that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“MSD”) SPC was invalid as it did not comply with either Article 3(a) or Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation. The SPC in issue was […]

READ MORE