Menu
Browse Options
No Mercy: Exhaustion of patent rights and burden of proof

The use and circulation of a product which has been put on the market by the patentee or a third party acting with the consent of the patentee (e.g. a licensee) cannot be prohibited by the patentee anymore. This concept of exhaustion is not only applicable to the territory of Germany, but to the entire territory of the EU and EEA, i.e. the common European market. This Europe wide exhaustion of patent rights is the basis for parallel imports, in particular for parallel imports of pharmaceuticals and plant protection products.

Being a defense, the burden of prove showing that the product has been put onto the market by the patentee or a licensee lies with the defendant. However, applying this [...]

Medeva and the Limitation of Composition Claims

In Medeva (C-322/10 of 24 November 2011) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had ruled that a Supplementary Protection Certificate relating to a combination of active ingredients can only be granted in view of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, if the active ingredients are “specified” in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on. Otherwise, in the view of the CJEU, the necessary protection in the sense of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation does not exist. Since it remains fully unclear what the CJEU means with “specified”, a term alien to patent law, this question meanwhile has become the subject matter of two new referrals to the CJEU, i.e. C-443/12 [...]

Leflunomid (Leflunomide), Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 24 July 2012

and Bernd Kröger.

A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain leflunomide that automatically results in – even with a certain delay – both components due to a chemical reaction.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Legro Gartneri A/S v. Svegro AB, Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court), 26 April 2012

The Stockholm District Court held the Swedish part of a European patent concerning a method of growing two or more plants invalid, due to lack of inventive step. Despite requests for limitations by the proprietor the patent was declared invalid in its entirety. Infringement, exceptions to patentability and prior use rights were also considered by the Court.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
EveryMed AB v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Svea Court of Appeal Stockholm (Svea Hovrätt), 27 June 2012

In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics’ European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the District Court, that the alleged infringer did not infringe the patent at issue. The Court of Appeal further held that a patent can only be declared partially (in)valid if the patentee has requested a limitation of the claims. Without such a request, the entire patent must be declared invalid.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Delaval v. Boumatic Robotics, District Court The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), 07 December 2012

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

[...]
Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...