In preliminary injunction proceedings: to fulfil the requirement of urgency a patentee must actively and with determination enforce the patent. A patentee does not have to wait for the outcome of nullity proceedings if a generic company has launched an infringing product on the market, thereby causing irreparable harm to patentee.
As a rule, an applicant has a right to inspection of respondent’s premises in order to prepare a claim for damages due to illegal exploitation of secret know-how. The applicant must designate construction plans which are to be inspected, otherwise the request for inspection will not be sufficiently precise and clear under Sec. 253(2) CCP. The applicant must prove a “certain likelihood” that its claim to damages based on illegal exploitation of secret know-how is justified. The right to inspection shall not allow an applicant to conduct a “fishing expedition”.
The Board of Appeal used its discretionary power to declare inadmissible an appeal based on the claims as granted after the proprietor had only defended amended claims before the opposition division. Even if this should not be construed as abandonment of the claims as granted, the request should not be admitted for reasons of procedural economy, because it would require the board to take a first instance decision. The proprietor had lost its right to a decision on the claims as granted by amending the claims to circumvent an objection by the opposition division.
The French Supreme Court condemned a patentee’s undue use of an evidentiary measure (infringement seizure, “saisie-contrefaçon”) as a way to obtain information from a competitor, specifically information relating to the manufacturing processes of its direct competitor, beyond the scope of the lawsuit (“fishing expedition”).
In a recent decision (case no. 4A_142/2013), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether one of the non-permanent judges of the Swiss Federal Patent Court, a Swiss patent attorney, was obliged to recuse himself due to activities of one of his colleagues in his patent law firm in connection with a trademark matter of a company affiliated with one of the parties of the pertinent patent dispute. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court took the opportunity and established a high standard to ensure the independence and integrity of the non-permanent judges of the Swiss Federal Patent Court.
The case at hand concerned the conflict between the Swiss retailer Denner and the patentee of the Nespres [...]
In my previous post of 2 August 2013 I made passing reference to the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in the Copaxone litigation. This case was an appeal of the decision of Arnold J (previously reported here) where he found Yeda’s patent valid and infringed. With permission of the court, Mylan appealed that decision.
Yeda is the registered proprietor (and Teva is the exclusive licensee) of EP (UK) 0 762 888 (the “Patent”) relating to a synthetic copolymer known as copolymer-1. Teva markets a product containing copolymer-1 under the brand name Copaxone, which is used for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (the most common [...]