As in other jurisdictions patentees in Swiss patent disputes often rely on the so called action by stages approach, which allows patentees to demand disclosure of information and financial accounting before the proceedings progress to the actual claim for lost profits, infringer’s profits or a royalty fee.
In a recently published decision dated 25 August 2015 the Swiss Federal Patent Court had to decide inter alia what preconditions have to be fulfilled before the patentee can succeed with his demand for information and financial accounting.
The Swiss Federal Patent Court ruled that the patentee only has to establish the infringement of his patent and that it is not necessary to prove ful [...]
In its decision Digitalblock (digital block) the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) has discussed the question whether “sleeping” features of a device can cause patent infringement (judgement of 19 February 2015, docket No. I-15 U 39/14). The case was about set-top boxes for receiving free-to-air and encrypted television signals. The patent concerned a specific form of encryption using a specific algorithm and the device claim at stake required various features of such a device including inputs, logic means and a special algorithm. The attacked set-top boxes did not perform this special algorithm but contained freely available program libraries in their [...]
In a recent decision, the Danish appeals court (High Court) overturned the first instance decision not to grant an application for an interlocutory injunction.
The case concerned whether or not the manufacture and sale of a number of hearing aids by GN ReSound A/S constituted an infringement of Danish patent No. DK/EP 2 076 065 and Danish utility model No. DK 2013 00096 Y6 belonging to Oticon A/S, and whether the conditions for granting interim injunction after the Danish Administration of Justice Act were fulfilled.
Oticon is the holder of a Danish patent for a hearing device and method for a wireless receiving and/or sending data and the holder of a Danish utility model for a hearing aid f [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]