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.
The CoA Karlsruhe held that the fact that a referral is pending before the CJEU regarding the issues of the criteria for raising the FRAND defense (C-170/13 Huawei) does not justify the suspension of the enforcement of an infringement judgment issued against a defendant. The court also expressed their expectation that – even after a future decision of the CJEU modifying the criteria set up by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the Orange Book case – the minimum requirements of an acceptable offer and to render accounts for past infringement will still apply.
The Oslo District Court held that the expired Norwegian patent 306452 (“452 Patent”) was invalid due to lack of inventive step, which implied that its supplementary protection certificate SPC014 was invalid as well. The court also found the 176 Patent invalid.
When does prior private use give a party the right to continue using the invention? Any person may claim personal possession on the ground of Article L. 613-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code providing that said person proves possession of the invention prior to the filing date or priority date of the patent. In a decision of 2 May 2014, the Paris Court of First Instance rejected a prior personal possession claim considering that the implementation plans of the invention are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the required prior possession.
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) held that where a defendant in a patent infringement action has been found to be liable for infringement in a decision that is preliminarily enforceable but subject to appeal, it is generally necessary to suspend enforcement of this decision under Secs. 719 (2) and 707 Code of Civil Procedure against security if the patent in suit has been held invalid by the Federal Patent Court (first instance) in a nullity action. This also applies in further appeal proceedings before the FCJ (second instance).
The FCJ held that the priority of an earlier application may be rightfully claimed if the technical information described for a specific embodiment or otherwise in in the application is seen by the skilled person as an example for the more general invention disclosed in the later application and if this more general teaching was disclosed in the prior application as part of the invention.