The Stockholm District Court held the Swedish part of a European patent concerning a method of growing two or more plants invalid, due to lack of inventive step. Despite requests for limitations by the proprietor the patent was declared invalid in its entirety. Infringement, exceptions to patentability and prior use rights were also considered by the Court.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics’ European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the District Court, that the alleged infringer did not infringe the patent at issue. The Court of Appeal further held that a patent can only be declared partially (in)valid if the patentee has requested a limitation of the claims. Without such a request, the entire patent must be declared invalid.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]One of the big difficulties in the everyday evaluation of inventive step revolves around the role that the problem underlying the invention should play in such evaluation. Two examples of more recent decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice are provided here to illustrate “the problem”.
In its decision Kosmetisches Sonnenschutzmittel III (X ZR 72/08), discussed here, the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) decided that the „Problem“ derivable from the description of the patent in suit is not the sole starting point for the evaluation of inventive step; rather must it also be considered whether the solution of any (another) problem with which the skilled person would usually be entrust [...]
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
[...]In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these features make a technical contribution to the invention.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The Paris District Court clarified its interpretation of Article 123 EPC regarding disclaimer allowability and allowed a disclaimer restoring novelty of a patent.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com .
[...]
