Browse Options
GN Resound vs Oticon – Danish High Court overturns decision not to grant PI

In a recent decision, the Danish appeals court (High Court) overturned the first instance decision not to grant an application for an interlocutory injunction.

The case concerned whether or not the manufacture and sale of a number of hearing aids by GN ReSound A/S constituted an infringement of Danish patent No. DK/EP 2 076 065 and Danish utility model No. DK 2013 00096 Y6 belonging to Oticon A/S, and whether the conditions for granting interim injunction after the Danish Administration of Justice Act were fulfilled.

Oticon is the holder of a Danish patent for a hearing device and method for a wireless receiving and/or sending data and the holder of a Danish utility model for a hearing aid f [...]

Another milking robot decision…DeLaval not liable for infringement of milking robot patent

On 28 May 2015 the Eastern High Court of Denmark rendered judgment in a case between the two largest manufacturers of automatic milking systems, in which Lely had claimed damages from DeLaval International AB (Sweden) and its Danish subsidiary, DeLaval A/S for infringement in Denmark of the Danish part of a European patent.

DeLaval, on the other hand, had submitted a claim for revocation of the patent-in-suit, which concerned the incorporation of an after-treating device (for spraying a cow’s teats) into a milking robot arm, which also carried out other functions in the milking process.

The case before the High Court had been pending since 2002, which was the reason why it fell under the jur [...]

The Danish High Court (Eastern Division) upholds the City Court’s decision to deny an interim injunction against sale of generic pharmaceuticals containing drospirenone

On February 13, 2015 the Eastern High Court of Denmark issued a decision in an appeal in interlocutory proceedings regarding an application for an interim injunction against the marketing and sale of generic medicines (birth-control pills) containing, inter alia, drospirenone.

Bayer is the proprietor of two patents regarding a method for producing drospirenone. On June 25, 2013 Bayer (immediately before the administration of justice reform on the jurisdiction of the Maritime and Commercial Court in proceedings regarding interim injunctions concerning intellectual property entered into force) filed an application for an interim injunction against Sandoz’ marketing and sale of generic pharmace [...]

Oticon v. GN Resound – infringement but no PI in Denmark

This week, the Maritime and Commercial Court inDenmark rendered a decision in a PI-case between Oticon A/S and GN ReSound A/S regarding alleged infringement of a patent as well as a utility model for certain antenna technology.

Oticon’s application for interim relief was, however, turned down, on the grounds that Oticon’s proprietary rights would not be forfeit if Oticon were referred to pursuing its claim for compensation in proceedings on the merits as a result of the infringement which the court found. Also, the grant of an interlocutory injunction was held by the court as being incompatible with the basic tenet of proportionality, i.e. the balancing of the respective parties’ inter [...]

Danish Supreme Court decision on preemptory invalidity in relation to a patent application (Dupont/Danisco v. Novozymes)

We have previously reported (post 28 August 2012) on ongoing litigation in Denmark between DuPont/Danisco and Novozymes resulting at the time in the grant of an interlocutory injunction being firstly granted and then revoked as the patent-in-suit was subsequently invalidated.

In a more recent development, DuPont/Danisco filed suit at the Maritime & Commercial Court (MCC) claiming that Novozymes be ordered to acknowledge that a patent application, when and if ultimately granted, should be held invalid in Denmark.

Novozymes argued, principally, that the action be dismissed and in the alternative that Novozymes be aquitted. The principal plea for dismissal was then made the subject of separate [...]

Can the validity presumption in Danish PI proceedings be weakened due to lacking prosecution steps?

Since July 2013 when the Danish Maritime & Commercial Court (MCC) took over as IPR specialty court in Denmark for PI cases also, the technical judges have taken part in the adjudication of PI patent cases also. Although the MCC has no legal basis to render judgement declaring patents in the course of PI proceedings, the fact that the bench is now made up of one legal judge and two technical judges in practice means that a well-documented invalidity defence may prove fruitful, whereas the invalidity defences in the past were almost invariably turned down by the bailiff’s who presided over patent PI cases due to the court’s lack of technical insight.
In a recent case (F&H A/S v. Bodum (Skandin [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...