By Christian Dekoninck, Crowell & Moring 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…

By Jan-Diederik Lindemans, Crowell & Moring 7 of the IP Enforcement Directive (measures for preserving evidence) was implemented in Belgium in Article 1369bis/1 et seq. of the Belgian Judicial Code. These ex parte proceedings, called (counterfeit) search and seizure proceedings, allow the competent Belgian court to grant the holder of an intellectual property right not…

As already described in a previous blog entry the Belgian Supreme Court nullified a decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal granting a descriptive seizure (“beschrijvend beslag”; “saisie-description”) on the presumption of validity of (European) patents.  The written decision of the Supreme Court is now available (link).  The Supreme Court has followed the advice of…

 1.         Introduction Preliminary injunction (“PI”) and seizure proceedings are powerful weapons in the hands of patentees in Belgium. Often, the success of a product launch and the outcome of a patent dispute will in practice be determined by a PI or seizure that prevents or ceases market entry by the alleged infringer.  In the context of…

PI proceedings have always been a powerful weapon for patentees in Belgium.  In such proceedings before the President of the Commercial Court a full legal analysis of the parties’ rights cannot be made. The President will only prima facie asses the parties’ rights and claims. As a result, invalidity arguments are not taken into account given…

Co-author Christiaen Dekoninck The Ghent Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of the German patent holder Grumbach and its Dutch licensee, Bollegraaf Recycling Machinery, relating to the Carbo Separator, a paper sorting device sold by their Dutch competitor Wagensveld to the Stora Enso group’s Belgian subsidiary. The Court affirmed the earlier decision of the President…

The Antwerp Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of the Spanish pharmaceutical company Almirall against Teva Pharma Belgium (Teva) relating to the generic ebastin. It confirmed the decision of the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court, although the Court of Appeal based its decision on other grounds. As discussed in a previous post, Almirall started…

Co-author Christiaen Dekoninck The Antwerp Court applied the infringement test to assess the validity of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) covering a combination product. As a result, the Court decided that Novartis is entitled to invoke its SPC covering the “valsartan/HCTZ” combination product against Teva’s generic version of Co-Diovan. By its decision of 13 May…

Co-author Christiaen Dekoninck. Noteworthy decision on the balance of interests within the framework of  preliminary injunction proceedings: Antwerp Court refuses to issue a preliminary injunction because the patent holder could have started accelerated proceedings on the merits earlier. By a decision of 15 March 2011, the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed the claims…

Interesting decision on prima facie validity of European patents in Belgian PI proceedings: the respectieve claims of the parties have to be taken into consideration to assess the consequences of an affected prima facie validity. By a decision of 16 November 2010, the President of the Antwerp Commercial Court held that the prima facie validity…