IT – Providus – lost profits / recovery of profits – Supreme Court

Posted: January 5th, 2022

Introduction With Decision No. 21832 of 29 July 2021, the Italian Supreme Court clarified: (a) what the relationship is between compensation for lost profits under Art. 125(1) of the Italian Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”) and recovery of profits under Art. 125(3) IPC; and (b) whether the recovery of profits requires wilful intent or negligence by […]


NL – Astrazeneca v. Menzis / Appeal

Posted: December 30th, 2021

AstraZeneca B.V. and AstraZeneca AB v. Menzis Zorgverzekeraar N.V. and Anderzorg N.V., Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 December 2021, Case No. 200.286.638/0, with thanks to Willem Hoyng, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, for providing the judgment and the translation “In 2014, the District Court invalidated a pharmaceutical patent of AstraZeneca AB for lack of […]


EPO – J 8/20 and J 9/20 – Artificial Intelligence – overview

Posted: December 23rd, 2021

European Patent Office, Legal Board of Appeal, Order in cases J 8/20 and J 9/20 published on December 21, 2021; reported by Dr. Klaus Reindl and Dr. Georg Anetsberger, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG In a Press Communiqué of December 21, 2021, the Legal Board of Appeal published the order in cases J 8/20 and J 9/20 dealing […]


NL – Bayer Healthcare v. Teva

Posted: December 16th, 2021

Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Teva B.V. et al. PI Judge District Court The Hague, the Netherlands, 10 December 2021, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:13616 Third generation divisional. Foreign proceedings on the mertits in which parts of the were invalidated do not take away the fact that the Dutch PI judge should reach its own conclusions. “At the […]



Posted: November 29th, 2021

Erasmus MC and Invivo v. Vitro et al., Court of Appeals of Barcelona, 8 April 2021, Appeal Docket No. 1969/2020 On 8 April 2021, the Court of Appeals of Barcelona rendered judgment on appeal in a complex case relating to nucleic acid amplification primers for PCR-based clonality studies, involving a number of issues regarding the […]


NL – Kiremko v. Tomra

Posted: November 24th, 2021

Kiremko B.V. v. Tomra Sorting Limited, District Court The Hague, 10 November 2021, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:12267 Tomra holds EP 1 289 385 relating to a ‘Steam Peeling Processing System’. Kiremko markets the steam peeling machine Strata Invicta in the Netherlands. Various proceedings have already been conducted between the parties regarding (alleged infringement with) the Strata […]


NL – Nutrition v. Noba / Appeal

Posted: November 18th, 2021

Nutrition Sciences N.V. v. Kuminda N B.V., Court of Appeal, The Hague, The Netherlands, 29 June 2021, Case no. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:2055 Nutrition is active in the field of ingredients for live stock feed and alleged that Noba infringes on the Dutch part of its EP 1 294 371 B2 relating to “medium chain fatty acids applicable […]


EPO – G 1/21 – Videoconference

Posted: November 16th, 2021

EBoA of the EPO, decision of July 2021, published on October 28, 2021, case no. G 1/21, reported by Dr. Georg Anetsberger and Dr.-Ing. Felix Grödl, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG In the case G 1/21, the question was referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the EPO, whether conducting oral proceedings in the form of […]


NL – Longhi v. Hanwa – execution dispute

Posted: November 2nd, 2021

Longhi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v. Hanwa Solutions Corporation, PI Judge District Court Rotterdam, 19 October 2021, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:10410 Execution dispute about the interpretation of a judgment rendered on a counterclaim in a dispute between Longi and Hanwa in which the Dutch PI judge despite the fact that the patent in suit did not designate […]


NL – Ericsson v. Apple

Posted: October 19th, 2021

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Apple Retail Netherlands B.V. et al, District Court The Hague, Preliminary Relief proceedings, 18 October 2021, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:11312 In the dispute between Ericsson and Apple, Ericsson is demanding the imposition of a freezing measure pending the hearing of the summary proceedings. The preliminary relief Judge refuses: “In that context, Ericsson […]