SEARCH RESULTS

FR – S.A. Technogenia v. S.A.R.L. Martec (formerly named Soneco) et al / Calculation of damages

S.A. Technogenia v. S.A.R.L. Martec (formerly named Soneco) et al., Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 25 June 2010, Docket No. 01/00035, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés, for sending in the judgment and the translation in English Calculation of damages for infringement (validity of the patent and liability for infringement had been […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Düsseldorf vs. Cologne – Gathering Evidence in IP matters: The Disputed “Urgency” Requirement of /ex parte /Inspection Orders

Decision of the Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf, 30 March 2010, Docket No. I-20 w 32/10The Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf had to decide on the question,  whether an /ex parte/ preliminary inspection order requires urgency of the matter. As commonly known, gathering evidence in IP disputes, in particular in patent and copyright matters, becomes […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Whiskey-Cola

Whiskey-Cola, Appeal Court Frankfurt, Germany, March 25, 2010, Docket No. 6 U 219/09, Preliminary Injunction Proceedings The presumption of urgency according to sec. 12 para. 2 UWG (German Unfair Competition Law) is rebutted in case the petitioner will not file a request for an enforcement of the issued preliminary injunction although the petitioner knows that […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

SE – Teva, Arrow and Ratiopharm v. Merck (Alendronat)

Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Teva Sweden AB, Arrow Läkemedel AB, Arrow Generics Ltd, Ratiopharm AB and ratiopharm GmbH v. Istituto Gentili SpA, MSD Overseas Manufacturing Co (Ireland) and Merck Sharp & Dome Sweden AB, Stockholm District Court, 11 June 2010, Docket Nos. T 16665-04 T 252-05, T 15175-05, T 7337-05, T 15141-05, T 30912-05 and […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – ohne Stichwort (“without keyword”)

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 […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE “Fälschungssicheres Dokument” (“Unforgeable Document”)

“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 […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

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

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 * […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Crimpwerkzeug III (crimping tool III)

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 […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Bidding in Bulgaria / Rome II

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 …

FOUND IN: BLOG

NL – Kedge v. Aabo & Safeway

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 […]

FOUND IN: BLOG