Safeway v. Kedge, District Court The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), 10 March 2010
The District Court of The Hague holds that in case of ambiguities in the claim language the skilled man will consult the prosecution history to determine the scope of protection. The patent can not be construed in such manner that it would lack novelty over prior art from which the patent was explicitly delimited during prosecution. No literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalence, since the products do not meet the function, way and result-test.
Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
[...]Pramipexol,Commercial court n.8 of Barcelona (Juzgado de lo mercantil no. 8 Barcelona), 02 March 2010
In this case the Commercial Court lifts an ex parte preliminary injunction against the launch of several generics of Pramipexol after an inter partes hearing. The ex parte decision was grounded on a Supplementary Protection Certificate based on a patent granted under the 1929 Patents Act. One of the claims of the patent was construed as conferring de facto protection on the product. As to this de facto protection the Commercial Court considered that, although the scope of protection of patents granted under the 1929 Patents Act must be determined according to the 1986 Patents Act (interpreting the claims in the context of the specification), one must take into account that under the 1929 Pat [...]
