Posted: March 27th, 2020
Higher Regional Court of Munich on the requirements for the reasons for a preliminary injunction in patent litigation – change of previous case law (judgment of December 12, 2019 – Case 2 U 4009/19*) – “Leiterklemme” In patent litigation, the reasons for an injunction necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction generally require that […]
READ MOREPosted: March 26th, 2020
CJEU, judgment dated January 30, 2020 – Case C-307/18 According to the CJEU, pay-for-delay agreements between the holder of pharmaceutical patents and manufacturers of generic medicines have the object of restricting competition and, thus, violate Art. 101 TFEU if the assets transferred to the manufacturers of generic medicines do not have any explanation other than […]
READ MOREPosted: March 18th, 2020
Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech, Inc., High Court, London, UK, 14 February 2020, Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 261 (Pat) Summary This decision relates to a preliminary issue and summary judgment application brought by Lilly against Genentech regarding a Genentech divisional patent directed to anti-IL-17 A/F antibodies. Roger Wyand QC, sitting as a Deputy […]
READ MOREPosted: March 17th, 2020
Court of Appeals Munich, decision of 12 December 2019, docket 6 U 4009/19 Background Like every other interim measure granted by German civil courts, motions for preliminary injunctions involving patents and German utility models must meet the “urgency” requirement established by Secs. 935, 940 German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) in order to be allowable. […]
READ MOREPosted: March 4th, 2020
File Inspection DE – German Federal Supreme Court, judgment dated 14 January 2020, case no. X ZR 33/19 On 14 January 2020, the German Federal Supreme Court rendered an important decision related to the protection of trade secrets in German Patent Infringement Proceedings. The court had to decide whether the procedural right of file inspection […]
READ MOREPosted: March 2nd, 2020
Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH (“Fresenius”) v. Biogen (Denmark) Manufacturing ApS and Biogen (Denmark) A/S (collectively “Biogen”), and intervening party Samsung Bioepis UK Limited (“Samsung Bioepis”), the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court Case number BS-39398/2018-SHR, 20 June 2019 Right to continue use begun before the priority date, invalidity due to inadmissible extension of the subject-matter, […]
READ MOREPosted: February 19th, 2020
High Point SARL v. KPN B.V., Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 14 February 2020, Case No. ECLI:NL:HR:2020:258 Is it contrary to Articles 68 and 105a-105c EPC that local rules of due process prevent that a centrally limited patent is invoked in proceedings? Interpretation of Articles 68 and 105a-105c EPC according to Articles 31 and 32 […]
READ MOREPosted: February 18th, 2020
IPCOM GMBH & CO KG v VODAFONE GROUP PLC and others Over the past 13 years, IPCom has been asserting its portfolio of telecoms patents against various companies in the telecoms sector. In this recent decision in proceedings against Vodafone, IPCom has had its patent found valid, essential and infringed by aspects of Vodafone’s 4G […]
READ MOREPosted: January 31st, 2020
IPCom GmbH & Co. KG v. Lenovo (France) SAS et al., Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (preliminary proceedings), 20 January 2020 The Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris Court of First Instance) has dismissed IPCom’s preliminary injunction action brought against Lenovo, on the ground that the requested injunction would be disproportionate. The action was based on European […]
READ MORE
EMAIL US
