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 .

In its “Leflunomid” decision of 24 July 2012 (Case X ZR 126/09), the FCJ declared a patent claim to be invalid which covered a combination of leflunomide and teriflunomide, on the grounds that it had long been known in the prior art (for 100 years) that some leflunomide spontaneously and unavoidably converts teriflunomide over time (by a ring opening process). The combination was therefore obvious to the expert. The decision will be published in the Kluwer IP case databank.

The plaintiff in the case at issue was a generic company which had launched what it thought was a patent-free mono-product containing just leflunomide. However, due to the conversion of some leflunomide into terifl [...]

In our post on 30 October 2012 we referred to forthcoming appeals dealing with how the question of obviousness should be tackled by the English courts. The Court of Appeal has now given its verdict in several judgments. The latest decision in Regeneron v Genentech dealt not only with the question of obviousness but also questions of novelty and sufficiency, construction and infringement. The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of Mr Justice Floyd at first instance* in the English Patents Court that Genentech’s patent was valid and infringed.

A brief summary of the facts: Regeneron and Bayer applied to revoke Genentech’s EP (UK) 1 238 986 (the “986 patent”) which discloses and cla [...]

The Court held that a decision by the EPO relating to the UK designation was not capable of challenge. In any event, the procedure chosen by the claimant to challenge the decision (an application to correct the UKIPO register based on Rule 50 of the Patents Rules 2007) was wrong, because it required the consent of the claimant (which would clearly not have been forthcoming). An application for rectification of the Register under section 34 Patents Act 1977 should have been used.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com