EPLAW PATENT BLOG

UK – Apimed Medical Honey v. Brightwake Limited

Posted: January 20th, 2012

Apimed Medical Honey Limited v. Brightwake Limited, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 20 January 2012, Case No. [2012] EWCA Civ 5 The patent claimed a composition (commercially available as Algivon) for a wound dressing combining honey with a "gelling agent". The gelling agent increases viscosity to the extent that it results in a flexible sheet […]

READ MORE

UK – Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services

Posted: July 29th, 2010

Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 July 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 819 The Court of Appeal has allowed Electromagnetic Services’ (EMGS) appeal of the decision of the Patents Court to revoke two of EMGS’ patents relating to the use of CSEM (Controlled Source Electromagnetic) surveying to detect oil and gas deposits […]

READ MORE

UK – Cook Biotech v. Edwards Lifesciences / Appeal

Posted: June 28th, 2010

Cook Biotech Incorporated v. Edwards Lifesciences AG, High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 June 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 718
“This appeal concerns the validity of European Patent (UK) 1 255 510 (“the Patent”), which was filed on 31 January 2001. The Patent is called “stent” valves …

READ MORE

UK – KCI v. S&N

Posted: June 23rd, 2010

KCI Licensing Inc, KCI Medical Resources and KCI Medical Limited v. Smith & Nephew Plc, Smith & Nephew Inc, Smith & Nephew Medical Limited and Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 23 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat)
The Patents Court has upheld European Patents (UK) Nos. 0 777 504 B1 (“‘504”) and 0 853 950 B1 (“‘950”) and found both to have been infringed by S&N.
KCI’s Patents concern apparatus for use in negative pressure wound therapy (‘950 is a divisional of ‘540). This therapy, involving the use of vacuums, has been found to reduce bacterial infection and to promote tissue growth, and thus to help heal wounds which were difficult to treat by previous methods.
S&N sought to invalidate the Patents on the basis that they were not entitled to priority …

READ MORE

UK – Nampak Cartons Limited v. Rapid Action Packaging Limited

Posted: June 22nd, 2010

Nampak Cartons Limited v. Rapid Action Packaging Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 18 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1458 (Pat) The Patents Court has dismissed an appeal against the Patent Office Hearing Officer’s decision to uphold Rapid Action’s UK Patent No. 2 397 593. Rapid Action’s patent concerns packaging for […]

READ MORE

DE – Fettsäurezusammensetzung (fatty acid composition)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Fettsäurezusammensetzung (fatty acid composition), invalidity proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 15 April 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZR 28/08
As to obviousness, the Federal Supreme Court ruled in the field of drugs:
For the person skilled in the art who deals with the technical problem to provide …

READ MORE

DE – Telekommunikationseinrichtung (telecommunication device)

Posted: June 16th, 2010

DE – Telekommunikationseinrichtung (telecommunication device), invalidity proceedings, German Federal Supreme Court, 15 April 2010, Docket No. Xa. ZR 69/06
As to obviousness and the references the person skilled in the art would refer to, respectively combine, the Federal Supreme Court ruled:
If there traditionally was a conceptual gap …

READ MORE

UK – HTC Corporation v. Yozmot 33 Limited

Posted: April 21st, 2010

HTC Corporation v. Yozmot 33 Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 20 April 2010, [2010] EWHC 786 (Pat)
The Patents Court has held Yozmot’s patent EP (UK) 0 909 499 to be partially valid.
Yozmot’s patent concerned a boosted loudspeaker for a mobile telephone. Yozmot alleged

READ MORE

SE – Hilding v. Wonderland

Posted: April 8th, 2010

Hilding Aktiebolag v. Wonderland AS, District Court of Stockholm, 12 March 2010, Docket Nos. T 29062-06 / T 22004-06 (joint cases)
In joint infringement and invalidity proceedings, the District Court of Stockholm declared Wonderland’s European patent invalid for Sweden in a judgment in the invalidity case (T 29062-06). The patent was declared invalid due to lack of inventive step.

READ MORE