Posted: January 23rd, 2011
Loutus is the holder of a Belgian patent for a speculaas product. Speculaas is a spiced biscuit and considered a typical Dutch culinary speciality. Willems filed for the invalidity of Lotus’ patent and the District Court granted that invalidity claim. A recepy for speculaas pie was already published on the internet before the application date of the patent and therefore considered novelty-destroying by the court. Willems further claimed that Lotus had acted unlawful by threathening and enforcing its invalid patent, but tthe court dismissed this claim.
READ MOREPosted: October 27th, 2010
Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc and Ethicon v. Novartis AG, Cour d'Appel of Paris, France, 27 October 2010, Case no. 09/08135 Various decisions were handed down earlier in the worldwide litigation brought by Novartis against Johnson & Johnson about a patent for contact lenses. In a decision of Wednesday […]
READ MOREPosted: October 26th, 2010
Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Frères, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on appeal from the High Court of Justice, London [2010] EWCA Civ 1049 The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought by the patentee, Roquette Frères (“Roquette”), against a decision of the Patents Court (Lewison J) that the patent-in-suit was invalid […]
READ MOREPosted: 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 MOREPosted: July 20th, 2010
Laboratoires Negma v. Biogaran and Laboratoires Medidom, Cour d’appel of Paris, 30 June 2010, Docket no. 10/07477, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés for sending in the judgment and the translation
In a case regarding novelty of a patent over a pharmaceutical preparation already disclosed in the prior art but claimed with a higher purity level of the active ingredient, the Court of Appeal of Paris decided that …
Posted: July 9th, 2010
Alk-Abello A/S v. Stallergenes, District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 7 July 2010, Case No. HA ZA 08-1445
Patent related to the treatment of allergies. The District Court finds that a prior publication by Hansen dating back to 1970 is …
Posted: July 8th, 2010
Hexal A.G. and SAS Sandoz v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GbmH & CoKG, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France, 7 May 2010, Docket No. 08/12537, with thanks to Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés for sending in the case and the translation In a case dealing with the use of (S)(+)-2-ethoxy-4-[N-[1-(2-piperidinophenyl)-3-methyl-1-butyl]aminocarbonylmethyl]-benzoic acid as the active principle in a […]
READ MOREPosted: April 2nd, 2010
Vastgoedmaatschappij Gebr. Ezendam B.V. v. Lommers-Van Eijken Tuinbouwmachines B.V., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 March 2010, Case No. 2009/2379
The District Court of the Hague ruled that Dutch part of Ezendam’s European patent on the use of a cutting cylinder unit, cutting device with cutting cylinder unit for shaping a plant,
Posted: April 1st, 2010
Olanzapine Ratiopharm GmbH, Ratiopharm Nederland B.V., Ratiopharm B.V. v. Eli Lilly and Co Ltd., District Court The Hague, The Netherlands, 24 March 2010, Case No. 2008/2126, with thanks to Chantal Morel & Moïra Truijens, Klos Morel Vos & Schaap
The Dutch part of Eli Lilly’s patent and SPC re olanzapine was found to be invalid