Contrary to established case law and practice, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna stayed preliminary injunction proceedings in a patent infringement matter and conducted an oral hearing. The proceedings were stayed until the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal’s decision, confirming the validity of the patent in suit, was available in writing; the oral hearing was…

The Supreme Court stated that decisions dismissing a request for a stay of proceedings that are within the discretion of the court can generally not be contested according to section 192(2) Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (“ACCP”). This general rule does not apply in cases where the law imposes a mandatory stay of the proceedings….

The newly established 15th Patent Senate of the Appeals Court of Düsseldorf (Presiding Judge Dr. Ulrike Voß) has referred a number of questions concerning the calculation of damages in IP cases to the European Court of Justice. This opens the floor for the ECJ to talk about damages, as far as I know for the…

1. Also in case a dependent claim is patentable on its own, fulfillment of all features of both the main claim and the dependent claim is required for infringement. 2. The scope of a patent is defined by its claims; the prosecution file may only be considered for interpretation if there are contradictions between the…

The act of including a generic product into the official Austrian pharmaceutical product index before expiry of the relevant patent/SPC, is considered an act of “putting into circulation” and therefore a patent infringement. By the same token the act of applying for reimbursement by an application to be included into the “Red Box” pursuant to…

The right to an unpatented invention does not entitle to its exclusive use; it ceases to exist if the invention is made public without patent protection. The right to an unpatented invention encompasses no more than (i) the right to file a patent application and (ii) the right to claim the patent, in case a…

As already explained in a previous post, the company governed by the laws of Switzerland, Novartis AG, is the holder of patent EP 0 443 983 entitled “Acyl compounds”, whose subject-matter is a group of antihypertensive compounds, including valsartan, pharmaceutical preparations containing them and processes for the preparation of these compounds. This patent, filed on 12 February 1991, was to…

A supplementary protection certificate SPC granted for an enantiomer (escitalopram) cannot be declared void because a prior SPC was granted for the racemate (citalopram) when both the racemate and the enantiomer are protected by individual patents and thus are different products. This must be so because otherwise the enantiomer patent would be invalid for lack…

The difference between “inventiveness” within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and “inventive step” within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between these two criteria. Thus, the inventive step pursuant to § 1(1) Utility Model Act requires the same qualitative criteria as inventiveness pursuant to § 1(1)…