Browse Options
FCJ: Goods Placed in “Internal” Transit Proceedings Do Not Infringe a Patent Right

by Anja Petersen-Padberg

The Federal Court of Justice decided in the “Electric Kettle” case (25.06.2014, docket X ZR 72/13) that the placing of goods in transit proceedings does not infringe a patent right in Germany as the country of transit. The court stressed that it is of no relevance whether the goods were placed in so-called “T1″ external transit proceedings or in “T2″ transit proceedings where goods are declared to be released for free circulation on the market of the European Union and are forwarded without sealing. Patent infringement may only be assumed if the goods are subject to a sales transaction in the transit country or if the goods are imported for this purpose. This must be [...]

Decision expected in Italy on participation in Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court

vlag italie kleinIn a surprise move, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development made a formal call last week on stakeholders to share their view as to what Italy should do with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent (UP) system. Italy is the only European country which has signed the UPC Agreement, but has stayed out of the enhanced cooperation within the EU leading to creation of the UP.
The Ministry wanted to know what the most favourable option is for stakeholders, including employers’ associations, patent attorneys and universities: 1) Italy to join the enhanced cooperation and to ratify the UPC Treaty; 2) Italy to remain adverse to the Unitary Patent, but to ratify the UPC Treaty; or 3) I [...]

UPC’s extraterritorial jurisdiction resulting from Regulation (EU) № 542/2014 amending “Brussels I (Recast)” Regulation № 1215/2012

Pierre veronPierre Véron is attorney-at-law at Véron & Associés, Paris, Honorary President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), Member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure and Member of the Expert Panel of the Unified Patent Court.

On 10 January2015, Regulation (EU) № 542/2014 of 15 May 2014 entered into force simultaneously with Regulation (EU) № 1215/2012, the so-called “Brussels I (recast)” Regulation.

The main purpose of Regulation № 542/2014 is to ensure compliance with the Brussels I Regulation (recast) of two treaties relating to international courts: the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Protocol to the 1965 Benelux Treaty on the Benel [...]

The Danish High Court (Eastern Division) upholds the City Court’s decision to deny an interim injunction against sale of generic pharmaceuticals containing drospirenone

On February 13, 2015 the Eastern High Court of Denmark issued a decision in an appeal in interlocutory proceedings regarding an application for an interim injunction against the marketing and sale of generic medicines (birth-control pills) containing, inter alia, drospirenone.

Bayer is the proprietor of two patents regarding a method for producing drospirenone. On June 25, 2013 Bayer (immediately before the administration of justice reform on the jurisdiction of the Maritime and Commercial Court in proceedings regarding interim injunctions concerning intellectual property entered into force) filed an application for an interim injunction against Sandoz’ marketing and sale of generic pharmace [...]

It’s Not Always About What You Do But How You Do It

The recent judgement of the Finnish Market Court (MAO:18/15) given on January 16th provides further guidelines as to what is expect from a method to be patentable especially in relation to existing techniques, while also serving as a good reminder that arguments non-related to the actual subject-matter do not save you, especially if you end up relying mainly on them.

The case involved a patent regarding an invention titled ”a method for manufacturing a health product given as drops” of the Finnish medicine company Oriola Oy (“Oriola”). The invention was an oil-based liquid product given as drops, which included both vitamin D and lactic acid bacteria. Oriola was originally granted t [...]

To Be or Not To BE SEPs

It used to be an excellent strategy to obtain patents on industry standards. The idea was rather simple: a patent covering an industry standard would mean that such a patent could be enforced against the entire industry. However, recent developments in the law on standard essential patents (“SEPs”) have called this strategy into question.

An SEP generally refers to a patent that claims an invention that must be used to comply with a technical standard. To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the IPR policy of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”). ETSI is a large standard-setting organisation prominent in commercially significant standards, such [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...