Posted: December 22nd, 2017

Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Danmark A/S (“Lilly”) v. Fresenius Kabi AB v/Fresenius Kabi and Fresenius Kabi Oncology Plc. (“Fresenius Kabi”), the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court, Case number A-19-17, 8 December 2017 The case concerns the infringement of Lilly’s patent DK/EP 1 313 508 (“DK/EP ‘508”) which relates to the use […]


NO – Orifarm v. Mundipharma

Posted: November 24th, 2017

Orifarm Generics AS et al. v. Mundipharma AS, Oslo District Court, Norway, Joint cases 16-135025TVI-OTIR/01 and 16-141308TVI-OTIR/01, 8. September 2017 On 8 September 2017, Oslo District Court rendered its decision in a case uniting two separate cases between Orifarm and Mundipharma (patentee) regarding claims of infringement and invalidity of Mundipharma’s patents NO 334290, 332248 and […]


NL – Sandoz v. Astrazeneca / Appeal

Posted: November 2nd, 2017

Sandoz B.V. v. Astrazeneca AB, Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 October 2017, Case No. 200.200.332/01, with thanks to Willem Hoyng and Theo Blomme, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, for submitting the case including an English and German translation thereof Astrazeneca markets FASLODEX which is used for the treatment of oestrogen hormone dependent breast cancers. […]


NL – Eli Lilly and Company v. Fresnius Kabi and Teva (Pemetrexed)

Posted: October 31st, 2017

Eli Lilly and Company v. Fresenius Kabi Nederland B.V., Preliminary Relief Judge District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands, 24 October 2017, Case number C/09/537158 / KG ZA 17/1072 Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Nederland B.V., Preliminary Relief Judge District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands, 24 October 2017, Case number C/09/538525 / KG […]


IT – Fresenius v. Lilly

Posted: October 3rd, 2017

Fresenius Kabi Oncology PLC and Fresenius Kabi Italia S.r.l. (“Fresenius”) sought before the Court of Milan a urgent declaration of non-infringement with respect to their new antitumor drug based on pemetrexed diacid in combination with tromethamine. Fresenius requested the Court to declare that its drug does not infringe – whether directly or indirectly – EP […]


NL – Asetek v. Cooler Master Europe

Posted: September 29th, 2017

Asetek A/S v. Cooler Master Europe B.V., District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands, 20 September 2017, Case number C/09/515892 / HA ZA 16-906 Asetek is the holder of the European patent EP 1 923 771 B1 (“EP ‘771”) entitled “Cooling system for a computer system”. The patent was filed on 8 November 2004 relying […]


BE – FN Herstal vs Heckler & Koch

Posted: September 22nd, 2017

SA FN Herstal v. Heckler & Koch GmbH, Tribunal de Commerce Francophone de Bruxelles, 28 April 2017 Combination invention vs. mere aggregation of features in patent law On 28 April 2017, the French-speaking Court of commerce of Brussels rendered a judgment in a patent case opposing the Belgian weapon manufacturer FN Herstal to its German […]


NL – Ruby Decor v. Basic Holdings / Appeal

Posted: August 30th, 2017

Ruby Decor B.V. and Aparto B.V. v. Basic Holdings ULC, Court of Appeal The Hague, 22 August 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:2409, with thanks to Alexander Tsoutsanis, DLA Piper, for sending in the judgment as well as an English translation thereof  Artificial fireplaces. Earlier, the Judge in PI proceedings ruled that in his preliminary opinion Ruby Decor did […]


NL – Smart Technologies v. CTouch Europe

Posted: August 1st, 2017

Smart Technologies ULC v. CTouch Europe B.V., District Court The Hague, 26 July 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8247 Smart Technologies is the holder of a patent on smart television screens. CTouch’s Gillette defence fails as there is a theoretic and practical difference between its products and the prior art. Injunction and ancillary claims awarded. Update: CTouch […]