The CJEU decided on a referral by the District Court Düsseldorf with regard to the interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU in the context of patent infringement actions regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). The Court held that the owner of an SEP who seeks injunctive relief against an alleged infringer does not abuse a dominant position resulting from the fact that the patent is an SEP as long as certain requirements are met. Furthermore, Art. 102 TFEU does not prohibit the proprietor of an SEP from bringing an action for infringement against the alleged infringer seeking remedies for past acts of use of that patent.
If foreign counterparts of a European patent have been declared invalid in five European jurisdictions and the arguments in these court decisions are substantially convincing, the prima facie invalidity of the Swiss part of the same European patent is sufficiently established for the purposes of preliminary injunction proceedings.
The Oslo District Court invalidated the Norwegian patent NO 324 454 B3 on a method intended for the direct detection of oil and gas in subsea reservoirs using electromagnetic measurements due to lack of novelty over four citations. This judgment differed from the English Court of Appeal, which had found that there were no grounds for declaring the parallel British patent invalid. The different outcomes may be explained by the fact that new documentation was invoked which caused the Oslo District Court to define the skilled person differently than the English Court of Appeal, as well as two new citations.
The Patents Court has allowed an application for pre-action disclosure of a subset of patent licences to a potential defendant to a claim for infringement, so as to allow that potential defendant to quantify any claim against it prior to the commencement of proceedings.
The board refused to apply Rule 56 EPC (filing missing drawings) to allow replacement of a poor quality drawing in a patent application by a drawing from the priority document. Although J2/12 had allowed replacement under Rule 56 in the case that it could be established that wrong drawings were filed, this applied only to errors as to the identity of the drawings and it did not extend to the case that the correct drawings had been filed with poor visual quality.
The District Court holds that Shionogi’s SPC for rosuvastatin (Crestor®) is invalid in part for added matter and grants a declaration of non-infringement for Resolution Chemicals’ proposed zinc salt of rosuvastatin.