The PI judge in the District Court of The Hague held that the processes used to manufacture the generic products in dispute did not fall within the invoked patents’ scope of protection, and particularly that these did not comprise equivalent measures, because the allegedly equivalent substances had significantly different chemical compositions and functionality. Finding the alleged infringing processes to be equivalent would be contrary to legal certainty.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]As Christmas is coming closer, the “where is the Christmas stand?”-question comes up again. This little piece of engineering only used once a year is not only subject matter of several patents but has kept the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf busy, too (docket No. I-2 U 84/03).
Who could imagine that a Christmas stand would be characterised by not less than 18 features? And who could have guessed that having just one single power transmission device would make the difference? Most probably no one (at least not outside of the Christmas season) has ever thought about Christmas tree stands and their ability to keep abnormally contoured Christmas tree trunks in such depth as the court had to [...]
The French Supreme Court specified the rules for the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the assessment of infringement of a process patent, holding that a patented process is considered to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalence when both means have the same function in order to obtain the same result as the claimed invention despite any differences between the claimed means and the allegedly infringing means.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]by Miriam Büttner
As promised by my colleague, Rüdiger Pansch (please see his post on “Munich Appellate Court on Making vs. Repair” dated 28 October 2011 and the other earlier Blogs cited therein) we are keeping you updated on what is going on at the IBC-front.
The German Federal Supreme Court rendered a judgment on 17 July 2012 (docket no. X ZR 113/11) in one of the two cases dealing with intermediate bulk containers (IBC) as pictured above – without deciding on the “philosophic” and extensively discussed question whether an IBC stays the old IBC or becomes a new one, when the plastic bottle is replaced by a new one.
In fact, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the claimants appeal aga [...]
The Supreme Court held that the patent claiming a device to be mounted on ovens used to industrially drain pasta was infringed by application of the doctrine of equivalence.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant’s machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court sanctioned the appeal court’s decision that the doctrine of equivalence could not be applied.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]
