Menu
Browse Options
Germany: Anthocyanverbinding, Federal Court of Justice 10 December 2013

The FCJ held that legal provisions in force at the priority date must be taken into consideration when assessing novelty and inventive step of an invention. These legal provisions may incite the skilled person to work in a certain direction so that this makes the invention obvious.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Norway: Liquid Seal Pump, District Court Oslo, 27 January 2014

The Oslo District Court held that Jets AS’ patent for a liquid seal pump of the helical screw type for use in vacuum drainage systems lacked novelty over one of Jets’ own patents. Despite the court’s finding on invalidity, the court did not consider Jets warning letter to a customer of its competitor, Evac Oy, in conflict with good business practice among traders pursuant to §25 of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
The wording of Prayers for Relief: A complicated Swiss affair

The wording of prayers for relief in patent infringement proceedings remains a hotly debated issue in Switzerland. In a landmark decision dated 2004 (BGE 131 III 70) the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that the patent infringing goods or procedures had to be exactly described in the prayers of relief of a cease-and-desist order. Since then, it has not been sufficient to simply repeat the wording of the claim of the allegedly infringed patent. In particular, this holds true if the interpretation of the claim features is highly controversial between the parties. The authorities that are in charge of the enforcement of an injunction cannot be expected to reassess the meaning of the patent cla [...]

Fettsäuren, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 24 September 2013

The later finding of the biological relationships underlying the activity of a drug does not constitute a new teaching for technical action if the indication, the dosage and the way of using the drug coincide with an the prior disclosed use of a drug for the treatment of a disease (confirmed by FCJ 9 June 2011 – X ZR 68/08, GRUR 2011, 999 – “Memantine”). The selection of a value within a known range does not render an invention patentable, unless for special circumstances (e.g. the dosage instruction achieves a particular technical effect vis à vis the prior art).

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Levonorgestrel, Court of Appeal of Burgos, 2 September 2013

The Court of Appeal of Burgos dismissed the appeal against the Judgment of the Provincial Court of Burgos, which upheld a patent for a pharmaceutical composition and its use, despite the fact that clinical trials regarding the patented composition and the patented use were mentioned in the prior art.

The full summary of this case has been posted on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Leflunomid (Leflunomide), Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 24 July 2012

and Bernd Kröger.

A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain leflunomide that automatically results in – even with a certain delay – both components due to a chemical reaction.

Click here for the full text of this case.

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

[...]
Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...