Commercial courts of Barcelona go one step further towards specialisation
There seems to be ample consensus in that Justice is better administered by specialised Judges than by non-specialised Judges. With this view in mind, in 1993 the Barcelona Court of Appeal took a groundbreaking step forward by conferring exclusive competence to one section (Section 15) to hear appeals filed in intellectual property cases. The successful experience of Section 15 inspired the Spanish Parliament when it created the new Commercial Courts (“Juzgados de lo Mercantil”), which began operating on 1 September 2004. Before the creation of these Commercial Courts, any civil Court of First Instance based in cities such as Barcelona or Madrid, which are the capitals of Spanish Autonomous [...]
Is it obvious how to apply “obvious to try”?
Although a number of issues were raised as to the validity of two patents in the recent Omnipharm v Merial [2001] EWHC 3393 (Pat) case, the most interesting feature of the case was the judge’s approach to the question of inventive step. The case focussed in particular on the role of the doctrine of “obvious to try”, which over the years has become a feature of the English patent landscape. The leading authority on “obvious to try” had for many years been the Court of Appeal judgment in Johns-Manville Corporations’ Patent [1967], in which Diplock LJ characterised a successful “obvious to try” attack as follows: “it is enough that the person versed in the art would assess t [...]
FCJ rules that the skilled person will look for approaches already provided by a standard when wanting to improve that standard
The German Federal Court of Justice recently issued a decision entitled ‘E-Mail via SMS’, November 22, 2011, X ZR 58/10, in which it was found that when seeking to improve a data structure prescribed in an international standard, a skilled person would consider mechanisms already described in the standard when solving the identified technical problem. It was furthermore found that if the standard provides a manageable number of possible solutions, each having specific advantages and disadvantages, this provides an incentive to take each of the solutions into account.
In the case in question it was ruled that it was obvious to apply a known concept for sending instructions to a SIM card of a [...]
Apple v. Motorola: No compulsory licence defence
- By Eike Schaper,
for Kluwer IP Cases
Motorola obtained a first instance judgement against Apple, because iPhone and iPad infringe the European patent No. 1 010 336 declared essential to the GPRS standard by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute).
Apple’s defence of a compulsory licence under anti-trust law failed.
The German Federal Court of Justice recognised in principle that a defendant sued for patent infringement may put forward the defence that the patentee is abusing a dominant position on the market by refusing to conclude a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licence agreement (judgment of 6 May 2009, KZR 39/06 – Orange Book Standard). An abuse of the dominant position [...]
Is the ECJ’s judgment in Medeva in line with EPC (2000)?
The recent judgment from the ECJ of 24 November 2011 in case C-322/10 (“Medeva”) has surprised the patent community, since the ECJ appears to have changed the view expressed in its judgment of 16 September of 1999 in case C-392/97 (“Farmitalia”), where the Court declared that it was not for the ECJ, but for national Courts, to decide whether or not a product (for example, a combination of two active ingredients) was “protected” by the “basic” patent. Taking into account that patent law has not yet been harmonized throughout the European Union (“EU”), the answer given by the ECJ in the Farmitalia case appeared to make sense. The fact that the Farmitalia decision might lead some national Court [...]
Danisco A/S v. Novozymes A/S, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, 8 December 2011, [2011] EWHC 3288 (Pat)
The English High Court has recently ruled on the appropriateness of staying validity and infringement proceedings pending a Technical Board of Appeal (“TBA”) decision of the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and on using disclosed documents in parallel foreign proceedings.
The parties involved have had a number of skirmishes recently in various courts throughout the world. The facts of their recent UK battle are as follows:
Danisco A/S (“Danisco”) applied to invalidate Novozymes’ patent, EP (UK) 1 804 592, which relates to animal feed pellets containing enzymes to promote digestibility. Although Novozymes does not yet have its product on the UK market, it is hoping to obtain regu [...]
