Menu
Browse Options
Salt limitation leads to sweet and sour Court of Appeal judgment

by Gregory Bacon and Brian Cordery

The Actavis v Eli Lilly UK litigation concerning pemetrexed (sold by Eli Lilly under the brand Alimta(®) has already been widely reported in light of Actavis’ innovative application to the English court for declarations of non-infringement (DNIs) of national designations of a European Patent in addition to the UK designation. The latest instalment concerns the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the appeal on the merits. In summary, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the declarations sought by Actavis. This overturned the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in the Patents Court, who had held that each of the UK, French, Italian and Spanish national designatio [...]

Another milking robot decision…DeLaval not liable for infringement of milking robot patent

On 28 May 2015 the Eastern High Court of Denmark rendered judgment in a case between the two largest manufacturers of automatic milking systems, in which Lely had claimed damages from DeLaval International AB (Sweden) and its Danish subsidiary, DeLaval A/S for infringement in Denmark of the Danish part of a European patent.

DeLaval, on the other hand, had submitted a claim for revocation of the patent-in-suit, which concerned the incorporation of an after-treating device (for spraying a cow’s teats) into a milking robot arm, which also carried out other functions in the milking process.

The case before the High Court had been pending since 2002, which was the reason why it fell under the jur [...]

How low can you go? Thresholds for access to seized evidence in the Netherlands

The seizure of evidence is part of every patent litigator’s (pre-trial) arsenal. To some extent this measure is harmonised by the Enforcement Directive (art. 6 Directive 2004/48/EC). However, it does not yet have the same fire power in every European state. To get a taste of the Dutch state of play, specifically what the threshold is to get access to seized evidence, two fairly recent Dutch decisions will be discussed.

The first is a PI decision of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden concerning the grant of access to seized evidence (Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden 16 December 2014, Econvert v. Voith). It stands out for two reasons. First, the court appears to set a low threshold [...]

Swiss Form Claims and Skinny Labelling – the Lyrica Appeal

On 28 May 2015, the English Court of Appeal issued a ruling in the on-going Lyrica saga which, although almost certainly not representing the last word on the topic, took a markedly different approach to the correct construction of Swiss form claims to the first instance judge, Arnold J. One thing there does appears to be agreement on at least is that this an important, yet difficult, subject matter.

The Lyrica litigation is active in several European countries (as well as further afield, e.g. Australia) and so the background will be familiar to many readers. In short, towards the end of January this year, Arnold J refused to grant interim relief against Actavis in respect of Warner Lamber [...]

Concerns over proposed patent exemption for physicians and pharmacies in Switzerland

By Mark Schweizer, Reinhard Oertli and Simon Holzer

The Swiss lawmaker plans to introduce a new exemption from patent protection for physicians and pharmacies. The new exemptions aims to protect physicians and pharmacies from being involved in patent disputes concerning second medical use claims according to the EPC 2000 (purpose-limited product Claims).

From Swiss-type claims to purpose-limited product claims

As is well know, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office held in a widely reported decision that under the European Patent Convention in the version adopted in 2000, which entered into force on 13 December 2007, claims to a second or further medical use of known phar [...]

U.S. Court Sets High Bar For Joint Infringement Of Method Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its remand decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., and this time affirmed the district court decision that Limelight was not liable for infringement of Akamai’s patents because Limelight had not performed each step of the method claims and was not responsible for the actions of its customers. The decision sets a high bar for joint infringement of method claims, requiring a principal-agent relationship, contractual relationship, or joint enterprise to hold a party liable for the actions of another.  

Liability For U.S. Patent Infringement

Liability for U.S. patent infringement is provided for in 35 [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...