EPLAW PATENT BLOG

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 […]

READ MORE

UK – Actavis v Eli Lilly / Supreme Court

Posted: July 12th, 2017

Actavis UK Limited and others v Eli Lilly and Company, UK Supreme Court, 12 July 2017, [2017] UKSC 48 The UK Supreme Court today gave its judgment in the long-running Actavis v Eli Lilly case concerning Lilly’s Alimta vitamin regimen patents in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. The Supreme Court allowed Lilly’s appeal and […]

READ MORE

NL – Carl Zeiss v. VSY

Posted: June 9th, 2017

Carl Zeiss Meditec AG v. VSY Biotechnology B.V. et al., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 7 June 2017, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:6136 European Patent on an intraocular (implantable) lens. Interpretation of claims. The Dutch part of the patent is valid: the hurdles of novelty, inventive step and enablement were all taken successfully. The patent is […]

READ MORE

UK – Teva UK Limited & Ors v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation

Posted: May 1st, 2017

(1) Teva UK Limited, (2) Accord Healthcare Limited, (3) Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation Arnold J held that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“MSD”) SPC was invalid as it did not comply with either Article 3(a) or Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulation. The SPC in issue was […]

READ MORE

UK – Stretchline Intellectual Properties v. H&M (Hennes & Mauritz)

Posted: April 6th, 2017

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited v. H&M (Hennes & Mauritz) Limited, UK, Court of Appeal, McCombe and Floyd LLJ, 30 March 2017 To what extent should the claims of a patent be construed so as to make a patent valid over the prior art? That was the critical question at the heart of H&M’s appeal from […]

READ MORE

UK – IPCom v. HTC

Posted: March 27th, 2017

IPCom v HTC, UK Court of Appeal, 28 February 2017, neutral citation number [2017] EWCA Civ 90 The Court of Appeal has handed down the latest decision in the long running litigation between IPCom and HTC. IPCom had appealed the High Court’s decision that HTC’s smartphones did not infringe IPCom’s European Patent (UK) 1 841 […]

READ MORE

NL – HTW v. Permavoid

Posted: January 5th, 2017

HTW Infiltratietechniek B.V. v. Permavoid Limited, Court of Appeal of the Hague, the Netherlands, 27 December 2016, Case number C/09/456139 / HA ZA 13-1362 Permavoid is the holder of European patent EP 1 311 727 B1 for ‘a pavement with structural module’. All claims of EP ‘727 are directed to a ‘vehicular trafficked pavement structure’. […]

READ MORE

UK – Napp v. Dr Reddy’s and Sandoz

Posted: November 7th, 2016

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited v Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited and Sandoz Limited, England & Wales Court of Appeal, London, UK, 1 November 2016, Neutral Citation Number [2016] EWCA Civ 1053 This was an appeal from a decision of Arnold J holding that there was no infringement of European Patent (UK) 2 305 194 (‘the […]

READ MORE

NL – Vertidrive v. Waterjet

Posted: October 31st, 2016

Vertidrive B.V. v. Waterjet Robotics USA LLC., Preliminary Relief Judge District Court of The Hague, the Netherlands, 20 October 2016, Case number C/09/515824 / KG ZA 16-956 Waterjet is the holder of the European patent with number 1 409 330 entitled “Air gap magnetic mobile robot”. Vertidrive develops and markets remote controlled magnetic robots for […]

READ MORE