Reports that say there’s — that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense, 1975-1977 and 2001-2006
According to Article 89 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), the Agreement is set up to enter into force on one of three dates, whichever is the latest. The first date provided in the Agreement was 1 January 2014. As we all know, it did not h [...]
Until recently, third parties had not to worry about the date at which they would initiate a patent revocation action in France. However, nowadays, this issue is a hot topic in France.
The origin of the current controversy is not recent as it lies in statute № 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 which shortened to 5 years the time limit to initiate actions qualified, under French law classification, as personal actions or real actions based on movable assets. This 5-year time period runs from the date at which the owner of a right becomes aware or should have been aware of the facts entitling him to do so.
For the time being, only one decision had the opportunity to decide upon the determination of [...]
The French Supreme Court condemned a patentee’s undue use of an evidentiary measure (infringement seizure, “saisie-contrefaçon”) as a way to obtain information from a competitor, specifically information relating to the manufacturing processes of its direct competitor, beyond the scope of the lawsuit (“fishing expedition”).
The Paris District Court clarified its interpretation of Article 123 EPC regarding disclaimer allowability and allowed a disclaimer restoring novelty of a patent.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com .[...]
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 [...]
The Paris Court of Appeal clarified the interest of a potential competitor to seek the revocation of a patent. It was particularly unclear whether any competitor, current or potential, could have a legitimate interest in the form of a “clear the path” approach. However, in this case the Court held that Omnipharm had no legitimate interest to seek revocation of Merial’s patents, as it had failed to prove that it would be able to develop and market a competing product.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com