The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that under certain circumstances, provisional cross-border jurisdiction can be derived from art. 31 Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which would require a “real connecting link” between the sought measures and the jurisdiction of a contracting state (ECJ C-391/95, Van Uden/Decoline). However, in the present case there are insufficient connecting points for such cross border preliminary injunction, since it’s initiated exclusively against parties without residence in the Netherlands.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that the processes used to manufacture the generic products in dispute did not fall within the invoked patents’ scope of protection, and particularly that these did not comprise equivalent measures, because the allegedly equivalent substances had significantly different chemical compositions and functionality. Finding the alleged infringing processes to be equivalent would be contrary to legal certainty.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The Court of Appeal held that the duty to compensate the successful party’s legal costs in intellectual property proceedings, pursuant to Art. 14 of the Enforcement directive, also applies to invalidity claims, counterclaims and defenses by the alleged infringing party threatened with patent enforcement. To deny such compensation in respect of nullity claims or defenses that constitute an important defense against enforcements of intellectual property rights would be contrary to Article 6 ECHR.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The Board of Appeal ruled that color figures contained in the application when filed could be used as a basis for amendments. The board had to deal with the problem that no original copy of the color figures was available to the board. Therefore, the board considered it appropriate to compare sets of copies of the figures to discover whether it could be consistently determined that one of these sets contained the most information and to assume that the originally filed figures contained at least the information in that one set.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these features make a technical contribution to the invention.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]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 .
[...]
