In an important change of position and influenced by the CJEU’s rejection of the Spanish challenge, Italy has announced it wants to join the enhanced cooperation within the European Union to create the Unitary Patent.
This has been reported by various sources. According to the website of the Società Italiana Brevetti (SIB), Undersecretary Simona Vicari of the Italian Economy Ministry declared yesterday that joining the Unitary Patent is a priority for her ministry. ‘After the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 May that dismissed Spain’s appeal, we have the confirmation that the legal framework of the Unitary Patent package is not in question’, Ms. Vicari said.
In a surprise move, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development made a formal call last week on stakeholders to share their view as to what Italy should do with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent (UP) system. Italy is the only European country which has signed the UPC Agreement, but has stayed out of the enhanced cooperation within the EU leading to creation of the UP.
The Ministry wanted to know what the most favourable option is for stakeholders, including employers’ associations, patent attorneys and universities: 1) Italy to join the enhanced cooperation and to ratify the UPC Treaty; 2) Italy to remain adverse to the Unitary Patent, but to ratify the UPC Treaty; or 3) I [...]
The Italian Supreme Court recently (and surprisingly) said that inventors must be named as co-defendants in revocation actions.
In 2010 I wrote a post concerning the requirement to name inventors as co-defendants in Italian revocation actions. I reported that the Court of Appeal of Milan had established a principle whereby named inventors had to be called in revocation actions and, if they were not, proceedings could not reach the stage of decision. This was based on the then in place provision of Article 122 (4) of the of Italian IP Code, according to which “Any action aimed at the revocation of an industrial property title shall be brought against all persons listed in the register as r [...]
By ruling of 21 February 2014, the Court of Turin decided a case between the US corporation Rovi and a number of Italian consumers electronics manufacturers. These had produced / imported set-top-boxes equipped with Electronic Programme Guides (EPG) that allegedly made use of the Rovi EPG patents, although without being covered by the Rovi licensing scheme. The Turin Court ruling is interesting as it tackles – one of the very few in the Italian case law – the issue of software patentability, reaching conclusions opposite to those of the UK courts in the Rovi versus Virgin Media saga.
The case had commenced with the filing by the Italian manufacturers of a nullity action against patents [...]
In the last instance, the Consiglio di Stato (the Italian supreme administrative court) established that Pfizer did commit abuse of a dominant position while it obtained and enforced in Italy its SPC protection over latanoprost. While the news was spread a few weeks ago already (the decision is dated 14 January 2014), the reasons of the decision have just been made available (they bear the date of 12 February 2014).
It is sufficient to recall that in September 2012, the Regional Administrative Court – in reversing t [...]
In a recent ruling rendered in the General Hospital v Asclepion case, the Italian Supreme Court wrote the latest episode of the “Italian torpedo” never ending saga. In particular, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Italian Courts in respect of a cross-border Declaration of Non Infringement (DNI). This ruling overturns the earlier Supreme Court judgment in the BL Macchine Automatiche v Windmoeller case which had ruled out cross-border DNI claims, also known as “Italian torpedoes”. The above is probably sufficient news for the older readers of this blog but not for the younger ones.
Italian torpedo was a popular defence in European patent litigation by whi [...]