On 21 May 2013, the Court of Appeal issued its rejection of Lilly’s appeal in relation to Actavis’ purported service of an application for a Declaration of Non Infringement (DNI) in respect of not only the UK designation of Lilly’s European Patent relating to a particular salt form of pemetrexed (“the Patent”), but also the French, German, Italian and Spanish designations.
The principle emerging from the decision is that the English courts consider that it may, at least in principle, be appropriate to hear the arguments relating to infringement of several designations of the same European Patent together in London. Practice points to emerge are: (i) inter-solicitor correspondence m [...]
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
[...]Introduction
The Court of Justice of the European Union last year delivered a decision on the impact of the GAT/LuK decision on jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings (Solvay/Honeywell).
As the case below is continuing its way through the Dutch courts, the frequency of publications trying to make sense of the 2012 CJEU decision come down significantly. The majority of the commentators so far seem to conclude that the CJEU in Solvay gave the green light to cross-border jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings.
This is a fresh attempt at establishing the impact of the Solvay decision on the interpretation of the relevant articles of the Brussels Regulation (EU Regulat [...]
The uninterrupted transit of goods designated with a trademark that is protected in Germany does not constitute an infringement of the trademark right according to German law. Should the trademark be protected in the country of destination, a foreign IP right will not be protected, owing to the principle of territory of property rights, as “property” under German tort law. Consequently, transit does not constitute a partial tortious act under German tort law. A precautionary claim to cease and desist import may exist pursuant to the law of the country of destination.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]Note on High Court, 27 November 2012, Actavis/Eli Lilly
Introduction
Last year the English Supreme Court in a copyright case held that there is no doubt that the modern trend is in favour of the enforcement of foreign IP rights and that there are no issues of policy which militate against it nor is there any objection in principle. This could be different, the Supreme Court also considered, where issues of validity are engaged. See: Lucasfilm/Ainsworth, 27 July 2011, paras 108 and 109.
Last week the High Court of England & Wales in a patent case held that it had jurisdiction to decide on a declaration of non-infringement not only regarding the GB part, but also regarding the French, the Germ [...]
Miquel Montana’s preliminary comments on the decision of the English High Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [27th November 2012] provide interesting food for thought.
Since some readers may not be familiar with the facts of the case and the relevant procedural rules in the UK, I will attempt to provide an overview before providing a few comments from a domestic perspective.
Summary of the Facts and Arguments
The decision concerned pemetrexed, the active ingredient in Eli Lilly’s oncology medicine Almita®. Pemetrexed is protected by a compound patent and corresponding SPC until December 2015. Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly US”) holds an additional patent (EP 1 313 508 [the “’508 Patent [...]
