Menu
Browse Options
Dr. iur. et lic. rer. pol. Catherine Chammartin new Director General of Swiss Federal Office of Intellectual Property

Dr Catherine Chammartin was appointed as new Director General of the Swiss Federal Office of Intellectual Property last week. She will take up her position on 1 November 2015.

Dr Catherine Chammartin is not an insider of the Swiss IP community. The thirty-six-year old used to work for the Swiss State Secretariat for International Financial Matters (SIF) in the Taxation Policy Section.

Dr Catherine Chammartin studied law, economics and social sciences. Her doctoral thesis is entitled „The State and the Banks – A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship in China and Switzerland“.

Catherine Chammartin replaces Roland Edouard Grossenbacher. He has been working for the Swiss Federal Institute [...]

The best things in life are unexpected because there were no expectations (Eli Khamarov)

Apart from the enthralling Lyrica saga which began in earnest back in January, and the main trial of which recently began before Arnold J, 2015 has not witnessed many significant pharmaceutical patent decisions from the UK patents courts. Thus, three cases in this field which, rather like London buses, arrived almost simultaneously, have provided welcome food for thought to life sciences patent enthusiasts.

The three cases were Smith & Nephew v Convatec (24 June 2015) and Eli Lilly v Actavis (25 June 2015) from the Court of Appeal and a decision from Arnold J in Hospira v Genentech (24 June 2015), part of the on-going campaign to clear the way in respect of certain Genentech patents relatin [...]

Finland: Should interim injunction decisions for utility models follow patents? (MAO:434/15, 18 June 2015)?

Inspired by several Finnish companies, like many other interest groups, having expressed their concern regarding the level of renewal fees of the Unitary Patent, I thought of writing about a slightly different protection regime that provides not only fast but also low-cost protection for technical inventions, namely, utility models. First I have a question for all of you interested in IP enforcement and interim injunctions: do you think that interim injunctions in cases involving utility models should be granted on grounds and standards different to those applicable to patents? If you do not have a view on this, see what the Finnish Market Court considers and as we will see the main emphasis [...]

Offer for development no obvious pre-use

by Miriam Büttner

In a recent decision the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, FCJ) dealt with the requirements of an obvious pre-use (judgment of 9 December 2014, docket no. X ZR 6/13 – Presszange).

In 2011 plaintiff attacked the German part of the European Patent 1 223 008 (DE 502 06 178.2), which concerns the construction of a crimping plier. Such crimping pliers are mainly used for sanitary installations to connect two pipes via a connecting piece called “fitting”. Plaintiff based its nullity suit inter alia on an obvious pre-use of the protected invention. In this regard plaintiff submitted correspondence with a manufacturer of crimping pliers to develop a crimpin [...]

SPC revoked, PI lifted, but no damages awarded

In the Sanofi v. Teva ruling of 10 July 2014, the Court of Milan clarified the test for abuse of process, and denied an award of damages allegedly caused by the issue of a preliminary injunction which was later lifted due to the revocation of the enforced SPC.

The case concerned the Italian part of the irbesartan saga, in which Sanofi was engaged in several countries in the enforcement of its CoAprovel SPCs, covering irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide. In the aftermath of the Medeva/Georgetown decisions, Sanofi obtained preliminary injunctions against generic CoAprovel in several jurisdictions, on the assumption that the combination irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide was “specified in the wo [...]

Brussels Court of Appeal refuses to recuse a judge deciding on the merits, who had previously decided on a PI request

The Brussels Court of Appeal has clarified in a recent decision that a judge, who has previously ruled on a preliminary injunction in a patent case, may be part of the court deciding on the merits relating to the same patent. The Court of Appeal held that there is no reason to assume that this judge would not be able to rule on the merits in an objective, impartial and independent manner.

This decision is part of the rivastigmine litigation in Belgium relating to Novartis’ patent EP 2 292 219 (EP ‘219). Novartis initiated PI proceedings against several generic companies that wanted to commercialize a generic version of the Exelon® patch. In this context, Novartis initiated PI proceeding [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...