EPLAW PATENT BLOG

UK – Ilumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA

Posted: February 16th, 2021

Ilumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others, High Court of England and Wales, 20 January 2021, [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) This was a substantial patent dispute which spanned 12 days in court and involved infringement and validity of 5 patents. The patentee, Illumina, held patents relating to DNA sequencing technology and MGI […]

READ MORE

UK – Coloplast v. Salts

Posted: January 25th, 2021

Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited [2021] EWHC 3 (Pat) (18 January 2021) In this judgment Nicholas Caddick QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found Coloplast’s patent for a “comfort layer” for an ostomy bag invalid for obviousness over the common general knowledge and also over five separate prior art citations. The lengthy […]

READ MORE

NL – MERCK SHARP & DOHME v. WYETH

Posted: November 25th, 2020

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 11 November 2020, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:11386 Wyeth holds EP 2 676 679, relating to “Formulations which stabilize and inhibit precipitation of immunogenic compositions”. MSD seeks to revoke EP ‘679 and succeeds. The Court rules that there is added matter that could […]

READ MORE

NL – LILLY V. FRESENIUS (PEMETREXED) – APPEAL ON THE MERITS: PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED

Posted: November 4th, 2020

1. INTRODUCTION On 27 October 2020, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (“CoA”) delivered its judgment in a case between Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) and Fresenius Kabi Nederland B.V. (“Fresenius”). The case for Lilly relates to its patent which protects, inter alia, Lilly’s product Alimta® in combination therapy with vitamin B12 and folic […]

READ MORE

UK – Conversant v Huawei / Appeal / Added matter

Posted: October 20th, 2020

Conversant v. Huawei – UK Court of Appeal finds patent invalid for added matter This was an appeal from a decision of one of the two technical trials in the FRAND dispute between Conversant and Huawei playing out in the Courts of the UK, Germany and China. The patent in suit was European Patent (UK) […]

READ MORE

DE – “Bausatz” / The direct and unambiguous differences in comparison to standing EPO practice

Posted: August 6th, 2020

The recent decision “Bausatz” of the German Federal Supreme Court dated February 13, 2020 (docket no. X ZR 6/18) is noteworthy for the clear illustration of the criteria the German Federal Supreme Court applies to the assessment of inadmissible extensions. The Federal Supreme Court’s general approach is partially in contrast to the practice pursued by […]

READ MORE

NL – DTS v. Samsung

Posted: May 20th, 2020

DTS International B.V. v. Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. et al., District Court The Hague, 13 May 2020, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:4264 DTS holds EP 3 229 099 and EP 1 634 140 both relating to a ‘method and system for performing a transaction and for performing a verification of legitimate access to, or use of digital […]

READ MORE

DK – FRESENIUS KABI V. BIOGEN / THE DANISH MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT (ADALIMUMAB)

Posted: March 2nd, 2020

Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH (“Fresenius”) v. Biogen (Denmark) Manufacturing ApS and Biogen (Denmark) A/S (collectively “Biogen”), and intervening party Samsung Bioepis UK Limited (“Samsung Bioepis”), the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court Case number BS-39398/2018-SHR, 20 June 2019 Right to continue use begun before the priority date, invalidity due to inadmissible extension of the subject-matter, […]

READ MORE

CH – Lilly v. Sandoz – Pemetrexed, Invalidity Action rejected

Posted: November 4th, 2019

In October 15, 2019, the Swiss Federal Patent Court held in Eli Lilly vs. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals that the Swiss part of Eli Lilly’s patent EP 1 313 508 B1 regarding the use of the anti-cancer drug pemetrexed in combination with a vitamin B12 is valid – almost to the day two years after the Swiss […]

READ MORE