The District Court The Hague finds that it is competent based on Article 7 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Article 6(1) Brussels I / Article 8(1) Brussels Ibis – plurality of defendants) even though the article’s preconditions are no longer met.
The Board of Appeal rejected an attempt to apply the fiction of novelty of “medical” substances and compositions of article 54(5) EPC to a dialysis membrane. Contrary to T2003/08 the claimed dialysis membrane did not contain any further substance that might constitute an active ingredient. With reference to arguments in T2003/08, the board noted that it was not decisive that the dialysis membrane could perform the same function as a drug. The board also did not consider the membrane a single-use product consumed during use, because the reason for not re-using merely was fouling, which could theoretically be removed.
The Bulgarian Patent Office refused to issue a supplementary protection certificate for a medical product comprising three components as one of them was not within the scope of protection of the basic patent. The decision of the Patent Office was first annulled by the first instance court but subsequently upheld by the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court.
The Board emphasized that there was a relation between who was to be considered to be the skilled person for judging inventive step on one hand and the choice of the closest prior art on the other hand. A general problem to modify a product from one field so that it could be used in any field failed to incite the relevant skilled person to select application to the specific other field of the patent, and directing the problem to a specific other field would add an impermissible pointer to the solution.
Inventions regarding a method of improving the yield of triploid seedless watermelons by pollination with a specific type of diploid water melon are not to be regarded as an essentially biological process for the production of plants and are therefore not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. These biotechnological inventions according to Rule 26(2), (3) EPC are therefore in principle patentable under Article 52(1) EPC and Rule 27 EPC.
Direct access to seized documents, selected from a larger pool of previously seized evidence, is denied on the basis of Dutch procedural provisions relating to Directive 2004/48/EC, because the defendant has not been allowed prior review of the seized selection. The court only allows access to a limited selection obtained by sufficient specific key word search followed by visual inspection and orders the bailiff to first allow review of this selection by the defendant, and to provide subsequent access to the claimant after a term of two weeks.