UK – Illumina and Sequenom v. TDL Genetics Limited

Posted: February 12th, 2019

Illumina, Inc and Sequenom, Inc v TDL Genetics Limited, The Doctors Laboratory Limited and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc, Patents Court, London, UK, 22 January 2019, Case no. [2019] EWHC 79 (Pat) This application was made by the Claimants for an order that they are entitled to receive confidential information under the terms of an existing confidentiality […]


UK – Huawei & ZTE v Conversant Wireless Licensing

Posted: February 6th, 2019

(1) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd (2) Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Ltd (3) ZTE Corporation & (4) ZTE (UK) Limited v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (30 January 2019, Court of Appeal, UK, Case Nos. A3/2018/1274 and A3/2018/1278) The UK Court of Appeal (“CA”) dismissed an appeal by Huawei and ZTE’s Chinese and UK companies against the […]


NL – G.D. Searle v. Sandoz

Posted: November 6th, 2018

G.D. Searle LLC. v. Sandoz B.V., PI Judge District Court The Hague, 1 November 2018, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:13017 Sandoz, without any prior warning, introduced a generic version of Prezista® at risk on the Dutch market. Sandoz included its product in the October version of the ‘G-Standaard’, which is the Dutch database containing information on all […]


NL – Novozymes & Univar vs. DSM

Posted: September 21st, 2018

Novozymes & Univar vs. DSM, Court of Appeal of The Hague 4 September 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2155 DSM IP Assets B.V. (“DSM”) is the manufacturer of, inter alia, the lactase product Maxilact, which is used to purify dairy from lactose. Moreover, DSM is the applicant of EP 1 954 808 (“EP 808”) called “Enzyme preparation yielding a […]


DE – Rasierklingeneinheiten

Posted: August 20th, 2018

Rasierklingeneinheiten, decision of 30 April 2018 – I-15 W 9/18 According to established German case law, a cease and desist order generally may not only include the mere omission of acts, but also the performance of possible and reasonable actions to eliminate a state of disruption. It is however not clear how far this obligation […]


UK – Q Delta v Zyxel / “external eyes only” confidentiality regime

Posted: July 16th, 2018

UK Court clarifies applicability of “external eyes only” confidentiality regime The issue whether certain licence agreements should only be disclosed on an “external eyes only” basis, i.e. only to external solicitors, counsel and independent experts, was recently decided in the UK by Carr J in the TQ Delta v Zyxel case. The case involved inter […]


NL – High Point v. KPN

Posted: June 20th, 2018

High Point SARL v. KPN B.V., Court of Appeal The Hague, The Netherlands, 5 June 2018, Case no. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:1271 High Point is the owner of EP 0 522 772 which relates to a ‘Wireless access telephone-to-telephone network interface architecture’. It has sued KPN for infringement. KPN, in turn, has claimed the invalidation of EP 772. […]


UK – Regeneron v. Kymab and Novo Nordisk

Posted: June 4th, 2018

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Limited and Novo Nordisk A/S, UK Court of Appeal, 23 May 2018, [2018] EWCA 1186 (Civ) This is a judgment from the Court of Appeal on the appropriate form of order to be made following its finding that two of Regeneron’s patents are valid and infringed. At first instance, Henry […]


DE – Confidentiality roulette in SEP proceedings

Posted: May 30th, 2018

Confidentiality roulette in SEP infringement proceedings, by Alexander Haertel and Jonas Block, Kather Augenstein On 25 April 2018 the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has continued its elaborated case-law with regard to confidentiality arrangements in standard essential patent (SEP) litigation (I-2 W 8/18). The Court deepened its transparency-approach taken already in a decision in January […]