Posted: January 15th, 2020
Technetix B.V. & Ors v. Teleste Limited, High Court, London, UK, 18 November 2019, Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWHC 3106 (Pat) This case was brought by the patentee, Technetix B.V and two licensees (the “Claimants”) against Teleste Limited (the “Defendant”) a company which manufactures electronic components. The Claimants alleged infringement of European Patent (UK) No. […]
READ MOREPosted: January 8th, 2020
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wiko SAS, Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 24 December 2019, Case No. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:3433 Philips holds various UMTS patents, amongst which EP 659. In first instance, Philips was unsuccessful in its injunction proceedings against Wiko, as the Court denied the infringement claim and revoked the Patent based on Wiko’ counterclaim […]
READ MOREPosted: December 18th, 2019
Fractus S.A. v. Xiaomi et al. District Court of The Hague 10 December 2019, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:13184 Introduction In these preliminary injunctions proceedings before District Court of The Hague, the following facts are of relevance. The patentee is Fractus S.A. (“Fractus”), which is a company founded in 1999 to research, develop and commercially exploit small-sized telecommunications antennae […]
READ MOREPosted: December 9th, 2019
Excel-Eucan Limited v. Source Vagabond Systems Limited, Patents Court, London, 21 November 2019 [2019] EWHC 3175 (Pat) HHJ Melissa Clarke This judgment from the Patents Court (Her Honour Judge Clarke sitting as deputy) considers the application of the law on infringement by equivalents. The case was heard under the Shorter Trials Scheme which applies to […]
READ MOREPosted: December 4th, 2019
SANGENIC V. LAMICO / THE DANISH MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT (DIAPER PAIL REFILLS) – Presumption of validity of granted rights, infringement by equivalent means, loss of rights/acquiescence, recall of products, damages and compensation, proportionality Sangenic International Limited (“Sangenic”) v. Lamico ApS (“Lamico”), the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court Case number BS-287/2015-SHR, 4 October […]
READ MOREPosted: October 25th, 2019
A Formstein objection in the UK? by Paul England, Taylor Wessing As is now well-known, in Actavis v Eli Lilly ([2017] UKSC 48) the UK Supreme Court held that direct infringement cannot be determined solely by whether a product or process falls within the language of the claim. Instead, whether variants falling outside the language […]
READ MOREPosted: June 27th, 2019
Illumina and Sequenom (the “Claimants”) have been successful in another action relating to their prenatal diagnostics patent portfolio, with Mr Justice Arnold finding that Sequenom’s patent EP 1 524 321 (the “Patent”; Illumina being the exclusive licensee) was valid and infringed by TDL’s product, the Harmony Test which was developed by Ariosa (who accepted joint […]
READ MOREPosted: April 24th, 2019
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court has handed down an interesting judgment in a case concerning validity and infringement of two patents. The judgment is interesting for two reasons. Partly because the Maritime and Commercial High Court amended the existing patent claims, which the courts rarely do, partly because the Maritime and Commercial High […]
READ MOREPosted: April 15th, 2019
The Court of Milan departed from its previous position and decided that an urgent declaration of non-infringement can be granted even after the alleged infringer commenced marketing its product. Bisio Progetti S.p.A. (“Bisio”), a company active in the research and development of coffee and instant drink capsules, sought before the Court of Milan an urgent […]
READ MORE
EMAIL US
