Infringement is unauthorized application of the claimed invention, e.g. by trading in a product that falls within the scope of the claims of a patent. Actively inducing, encouraging or materially contributing to the infringing activity may – in some jurisdictions – also constitute indirect infringement. Infringement by inducement and contributory infringement are two types of indirect patent infringement, recognized in the U.S. In Europe indirect infringement generally relates to the (offer to) supply a means essential to the invention.
The Supreme Court held that if someone exports goods from Germany and it is not proven that the same person imported them into Austria, there is no infringement of patent rights in Austria, even when the goods are assigned to be imported into Austria. In this particular case the Court of first instance carried out…
On the occasion of a dispute opposing the Institut Pasteur and two Chiron companies, the French Cour de Cassation rendered on 14 December 2010 an interesting decision which confirms the existing case law on three points : the “file wrapper estoppel” theory, the contributory infringement and the infringement by equivalence.
Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!
By way of follow up of my many posts on the “intersections” between Italian patent law and the administrative procedures aimed at the authorisation of generic drugs (e.g. here, here and here), it is interesting to note another means by which the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) attempts to remain outside any patent dispute that may…
On 30 June 2010, the Supreme Court held that the ‘Bolar provision’ introduced by Law 29/2006, which implemented Directive 2004/27 into Spanish law, may not be applied retrospectively. In addition, the Supreme Court revoked the view expressed by the Court of Appeal of Pamplona and other provincial Courts, which had considered that the ‘Bolar provision’…
On 8 October 2010, the Cour d’Appel of Paris rendered a interesting decision about the interpretation of the wording of one of the settlement agreements which have been concluded between Institut Pasteur and the American health authority (DHHS/NIH) in order to put an end to the various disputes which opposed them concerning the paternity of the HIV-1/VIH retrovirus’ discovery and the patents relating thereto. The question at stake was to determine if a gp 110 protein was the subject-matter of the said settlement agreement so that Abbott, as a sublicensee of the NIH, could validly exploit in France that gp 110 protein in its detecting kits. Otherwise Abbott would have been an infringer of the Institut Pasteur’s European patents.
The case concerned the question of whether the sale of an incomplete kit of parts to a customer outside of the UK could constitute infringement of a patent for the assembled device for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (based on Article 25 CPC). The judge (Arnold J) also provided some…
The case concerned the question of whether the sale of an incomplete kit of parts to a customer outside of the UK could constitute infringement of a patent for the assembled device for the purposes of section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 (based on Article 25 CPC). The judge (Arnold J) also provided some…
This judgement is one of many issued in the worldwide litigation pending between Novartis and Johnson & Johnson concerning Novartis’ patent for ophthalmically compatible extended wear contact lenses. The decision contains a recapitulation of all possible grounds for invalidity of a patent. The Court rejected the detailed claims of invalidity for lack of sufficiency, dealt…
The Court of Appeal allowed Grimme’s appeal, holding that Grimme’s patent for an agricultural machine for harvesting and separating potatoes (from other materials such as earth, clods, stones, weeds or the like) featuring rubber rollers, was inventive. Of particular interest was the Court of Appeal’s clarification of the law of contributory infringement (s.60(2) Patents Act…
