SEARCH RESULTS

DE – Holzhäcksler / infringement

Holzhäcksler (Wood chaff cutter), infringement proceedings (preliminary injunction and validity), Court of Appeals Düsseldorf, 18 May 2009, Docket No. 2 U 140/08 The Court refused to grant a preliminary injunction for patent infringement because the patent in dispute lacked sufficiently secure validity due to contradicting votes in view of the same set of facts and […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

UK – LEO Pharma v. Sandoz Limited / First instance

LEO Pharma A/S and LEO Laboratories Limited v. Sandoz Limited, invalidity proceedings, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, UK, 15 May 2009, Docket No. HC08C00391, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons Sandoz unsuccessfully challenges Leo's patent on the basis that the claimed invasion is anticipated by and/or it […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Pneumatisches Schlagwerkzeug / infringement

Pneumatisches Schlagwerkzeug (Pneumatic striking tool), infringement proceedings (introducing a new claim on appeal), Court of Appeals Düsseldorf, Germany, 14 May 2009, Docket No. 2 U 65/04 Asserting a claim for destruction of the infringing embodiments for the first time in the appeal instance is a generally admissible extension of the original complaint. Read the judgment […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

IT – Saip & Schyller, Schneider Electric Industries / Optima

Saip & Schyller S.p.A., Schneider Electric and Industries Sas and Schneider Electric S.p.A. re 'Optima', appeal from decision rejecting a preliminary injunction, Milan Court, Italy, 14 May 2009, Docket No. 5439/09, With thanks to Sandro Hassan, Siblegal Rejected appeal from a decision rejecting a request for preliminary injunction due to doubts both as to infringement […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

IT – Gipron Giuseppe Pronzati v. Masters

Gipron Giuseppe Pronzati S.P.A. v. Masters S.R.L., Italian Supreme Court, Italy, 23 April 2009, Docket No. 19688/2009, with thanks to Sandro Hassan, Siblegal The Supreme Court confirms that damages for infringements can only be claimed as from the date on which a patent application was either laid open to the public or formally served upon […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

EPO – Board of Appeal T 1143/06 / Data selection system

EPO, Board of Appeal 3.5.01, 1 April 2009, Docket No. T 1143/06 – Data selection system
The Board confirmed a strict approach regarding the treatment of features relating to a presentation of information in view of inventiveness and confronted the more liberal view expressed by a different Board. In the present case, the deciding Board held that a feature which relates to the manner how cognitive content is conveyed to the user on a screen normally does not contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem.

FOUND IN: BLOG

FR – Johnson&Johnson v. Novartis

Johnson&Johnson c.s. v. Novartis, infringement and invalidity proceedings, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 25 March 2009, Docket No. 07/13504, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés This action is part of the wider (ophthalmic lens) dispute between the same parties in the US, Australia and various European countries (Germany, Britain and Italy). Although […]

FOUND IN: BLOG

DE – Italian Torpedo

Italienischer Torpedo/Italian Torpedo – patent infringement, Düsseldorf Regional Court, Germany, 17 March 2009, Case No.: 4b O 218/08  The only factual requirements pursuant to Article 27 Council Regulation (EC) no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters are the identity of the parties and […]

FOUND IN: BLOG