Browse Options
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 [...]

Is paying for a licensed but later invalidated patent contrary to Article 101 of the TFEU?

Pierre Véron and Amandine Métier, Véron & Associés

On 23 September 2014, the cour d’appel de Paris, in Genentech v. Hoechst and Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, Docket № 12/21810, decided to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union the following question:

“Should the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty, now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as an obstacle to giving effect, in case of invalidation of the patents, to a licence agreement which imposes on the licensee royalties for the sole use of the rights attached to the patents under licence?”

Through this referral the court questions the compatibility [...]

Adding is limiting

Syngenta Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Syngenta”), a company governed by the laws of England and Wales, is the holder of European patent No. 0 382 375 entitled “Fungicides”. On 28 September 2009, it submitted to the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI; French Industrial Property Office) a request for limitation of a claim of the French designation of this patent (pursuant to Art. L. 613-24 of the French Intellectual Property Code; this voluntary limitation procedure independently of any litigation is possible in French law since 1st January 2009 and the entry into force of the French Act No. 2008-776 dated 4 August 2008).


More precisely, Syngenta sought to [...]

A saisie-contrefaçon is not a fishing expedition

The French saisie-contrefaçon is known to be an extremely powerful and effective tool to collect evidence of infringement of a patent (as of any other intellectual property right, see “Saisie-contrefaçon” on Wikipedia and also P. Véron et alii, Saisie-contrefaçon, Paris, Dalloz Action, 3rd ed. 2013-2014). It is a procedure that allows to request and obtain from the Presiding Jugde of the tribunal de grande instance de Paris, an order authorizing the patentee to send a bailiff in order to make a descriptive seizure (which consists in a description by the bailiff’s report of infringing objects and of all facts that could prove the infringement) or physical seizure (where samples of the [...]

A poor consolation

On 15 January 2013, the French Cour de cassation, in the litigation between the Novartis companies and the Actavis companies about valsartan, drew the consequences of the 9 February 2012 order rendered by the CJEU in the frame of a parallel litigation in the United Kingdom.

As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, was granted European patent EP 0 443 983 relating to “acyl compounds”, including valsartan, and, after its expiry, a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) No. 97C0050 which was in turn the subject of a pediatric extension expiring on 13 November 2011.


The company governed by the laws of France, Novartis Pharm [...]

A too distant expiry

Faithfully implementing Article 9 §4 of Directive No. 2004/48/EC, Arti-cle L. 615–3 of the French Intellectual Property Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) authorizes French courts to grant an interim injunction order after an inter partes proceedings (before the Judge ruling in preliminary proceedings) but also after an ex parte proceedings. As required by the EC Directive, the ex parte proceedings is reserved for the appropriate cases, where it seems necessary, “when the circumstances require that such measure should not be taken in the presence of both parties, in particular when any delay would be likely to cause an irreparable damage to the claimant”.

But, in practice, wha [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...