UPC aficionados will be interested to learn that the 16th draft of the Rules of Procedure was unveiled yesterday.
Readers will remember that the previous draft was published on 31 May 2013. Since then, the Drafting Committee has been working on a new draft that may – or may not – accommodate the comments received from stakeholders, including those discussed at the European Judge’s Forum that took place in Venice on 25-26 October 2013. Trying to comment on the 382 Rules of the draft in this very brief blog would be like trying to sum-up the history of mankind in a haiku. So this author will focus his attention on one aspect that appears to be here to stay: the obstinate “opting-out” fee. [...]
In our previous blog Opting out and Opting in we discussed some of the questions regarding the transitional regime under the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). Due to its importance and ambiguity this provision continues to be a source of considerable controversy, so much so that the Preparatory Committee, which is tasked with preparing the establishment of the court, issued an Interpretative Note on January 29, 2014.
The Interpretative Note addresses the substantive law to be applied by the national courts once the UPCA has entered into force. As it also acknowledges, the Note has merely persuasive authority. The national courts will have to decide which law to apply. The Note is there [...]
General disadvantages of fixed-dose combinations cannot reduce the reasonable expectation of success derivable from the prior art with respect to the formulation of a pharmaceutical composition containing two specific active pharmaceutical ingredients. A synergistic effect is not suitable to establish inventive step of a fixed-dose combination of two active pharmaceutical ingredients, where the synergistic effect was already observed for the simultaneous but separate administration of the same active ingredients.
1. Also in case a dependent claim is patentable on its own, fulfillment of all features of both the main claim and the dependent claim is required for infringement.
2. The scope of a patent is defined by its claims; the prosecution file may only be considered for interpretation if there are contradictions between the claims, the description and/or the drawings.
The Court of Appeal Düsseldorf held that the offering of certain products by the defendants was not covered by the scope of the patent due to the specific “Swiss type” wording, which does not grant an absolute product protection, and due to the fact that the advertising of the defendants did not address the patented use specifically enough.
Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH and Norgren AG  EWHC 14 (Ch) is an interesting case relating to the valves in stretch blow moulding machines used to make plastic bottles. The patent was alleged to be invalid for both lack of novelty and obviousness, although the Defendants denied that the relevant prior art had actually been made available to the public. In the alternative, the claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement in relation to certain claims of the patent. The trial judge was Roth J, who does not hear many patent cases but is gaining experience all the time.
The sole novelty citation was a fax sent around nine years before the priority date from the head of d [...]