In a recent decision by the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, the issue was whether a technical feature may consist in information attached to an object if such information increases the usability of the object.
The case T-66-07, Svenco Papperssäcker AB v. Segezha Packaging A/S, Svenco had filed suit claiming infringement of its Danish patent DK 175 996D1 claiming that Segezha had infringed this patent by marketing wastepaper bags with an inside line marking the maximum content of the wastepaper bag.
Segezha, on the other hand, entered a plea of invalidity of the patent-in-suit.
Against this background, the parties requested that the court-appointed experts of its own – as is usual in D [...]
As any practitioner who has come in contact with the Danish legal system in connection with disputes concerning IPR will know, until now, the complexities quite often involved in such cases have often proven difficult for Danish courts, especially enforcement courts, to handle.
Consequently, it has for many years been a focal point of IPR advisors that the Danish court system, and especially the enforcement system, be reformed to address the lack of expertise on the bench.
The Danish Secretary of Justice has now, on 1 November 2012, presented a bill to the Danish parliament in order to address these issues and modernise the Danish enforcement court system.
If passed, the enforcement court sy [...]
In the wake of the UPC Agreement having been entered into under the Danish presidency, there was widespread euphoria about the many, potentially positive, aspects of Danish SME litigants being able to save substantial costs under the envisaged UPC regime.
The Danish press abounded in positive reviews put forward by politicians and industry representatives alike, who were all able to invoke examples of some of the present system absurdities including mixed outcomes of patent litigation throughout Europe that would now finally be of interest to only legal historians.
One example offered by a representative of the industry was an instance in which a medium-sized Danish enterprise had been force [...]
The pan-European litigation between Danish companies Danisco A/S (today a part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has been extensively reported in posts on this blog (12/08/2011; 21/09/2011; 10/01/2012; 09/07/2012; 03/08/2012). The litigation has involved Novozymes’ European Patent EP 1 804 592 B1 on the manufacture of certain enzyme-containing animal food pellets. In a decision announced on 31 July 2012, the European Patent was finally revoked by the Board of Appeal of the EPO thus bringing to an end most (if not all) of this litigation (divisional utility models are still in force in Germany and in Finland).
Even though this brought the EPO opposition proceedings to an end at what appears to be [...]
The interesting six-jurisdiction patent case between two of the world’s leading enzyme manufacturers, the Danish companies Danisco A/S (now part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has already been subject to earlier blogs both here and several times on EPLAW and PatLit. To recap the story briefly, Novozymes started the proceedings by applying for a preliminary injunction against Danisco on the basis of its EP patent 1 804 592 (“the Patent”) in Denmark, and obtained it following a lengthy trial, and then won again in first instance proceedings in the Netherlands where the Rechtsbank held the patent valid and infringed. Shortly thereafter, however, the tide turned and the patent was revoked i [...]
In a recent decision (16.5.2012) the Supreme Court in Denmark has ruled on the requirement of creative step that applies to Danish utility models and serves the same purpose as inventive step in respect of patents.
The utility model-in-suit had been invalidated by the Danish Patent Office and that decision was upheld by the Maritime and Commercial Court in the first instance citing, inter alia,
the preparatory works on which the Utility Models Act is based.
The preparatory works stress that it was the intention of the legislative body to lower the bar as regards the inventive aspect when compared to what is required for a patent. The Maritime and Commercial Court went on to state that the de [...]