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,  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 …
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,  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
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 …
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 …
Posted: April 21st, 2010
HTC Corporation v. Yozmot 33 Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 20 April 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
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.
Posted: February 23rd, 2010
Intervet UK Limited v Merial & Others, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 23 February 2010, Case No.  EWHC 294 (Pat), with thanks to Richard Willoughby, Howrey
Today, the approved judgment of Mr Justice Arnold has been published regarding the UK aspect of a number of associated actions concerning the Defendant’s European patent entitled “Method for the in vitro diagnosis of type II porcine circovirus infection and diagnostic reagents” (the “Patent”). In summary, the Defendants alleged that Intervet had infringed claim 18 of the Patent
Posted: February 18th, 2010
Actavis UK Limited v Novartis AG, High court of Justice, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), London, UK, 17 February 2010,  EWCA Civ 82 The Court of Appeal has dismissed Novartis's appeal against the High Court's decision that its European Patent EP0948320, claiming a sustained release formulation of fluvastatin, a drug used to treat high […]READ MORE
Posted: January 18th, 2010
Nokia GmbH v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG and IPCom GmbH & CO. KG v. Nokia UK Limited and Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation), Invalidity and infringement proceedings (GSM, UMTS), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, The Hon Mr Justice Floyd, London, UK, 18 January 2010
These proceedings concern two patents in the name of IPCom GmbH and Co KG (“IPCom”). IPCom sued Nokia UK Limited and Nokia Oyj (Nokia Corporation) for infringement of both patents. The proceedings are part of a larger battle between