Posted: December 16th, 2009
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (K.K.) v. Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. and Samsung Electronics Europe Logistics B.V., infringement and invalidity proceedings, The Hague District Court, The Netherlands, 16 December 2009, Docket No. 317853 / HA ZA 08-2775
The District Court of The Hague invalidates claim 1 and 2 of the Dutch part of Sharps’ European patent on ‘liquid crystal display apparatus’ due to a lack of novelty. Samsung’s novelty defence against the other claims invoked by Sharp (claims 8 until 12) was rejected. The District Court also dismissed Samsung’s obviousness defence even when taking Samsung’s own starting points as closest prior art.
Samsung Benelux's only defence in this patent infringement suit consisted of challenging the validity of the invoked patent claims. Since the District Court held claims 8-12 valid, patent infringement by this legal entity was given.
Since the other defendant Samsung Logistics denies having conducted any activities falling under the scope of the Dutch Patent Act, Sharp is allowed to provide further evidence to substantiate its patent infringement claim against Samsung Logistics.
Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.