Menu
Browse Options
SPC revoked, PI lifted, but no damages awarded

In the Sanofi v. Teva ruling of 10 July 2014, the Court of Milan clarified the test for abuse of process, and denied an award of damages allegedly caused by the issue of a preliminary injunction which was later lifted due to the revocation of the enforced SPC.

The case concerned the Italian part of the irbesartan saga, in which Sanofi was engaged in several countries in the enforcement of its CoAprovel SPCs, covering irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide. In the aftermath of the Medeva/Georgetown decisions, Sanofi obtained preliminary injunctions against generic CoAprovel in several jurisdictions, on the assumption that the combination irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide was “specified in the wo [...]

Spanish Courts move one step further towards the path of specialisation

In a world of increasing legal complexity, it is a common ground – except in Luxembourg – that the lack of specialisation results in the administration of injustice rather than in the administration of justice. The President of Section 15 of the Barcelona Court of Appeal appeared to have this logic in mind when, in 1993, he had the vision to persuade his fellow Judges to assign the different Sections of that Court to various specialised areas. For example, it was decided that Section 15 would be the only competent Section to resolve appeals in patent cases. At that time this was an absolute revolution, as the old structures and inertia of the Spanish judicial system was such that this gr [...]

How low can you go? Thresholds for access to seized evidence in the Netherlands

The seizure of evidence is part of every patent litigator’s (pre-trial) arsenal. To some extent this measure is harmonised by the Enforcement Directive (art. 6 Directive 2004/48/EC). However, it does not yet have the same fire power in every European state. To get a taste of the Dutch state of play, specifically what the threshold is to get access to seized evidence, two fairly recent Dutch decisions will be discussed.

The first is a PI decision of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden concerning the grant of access to seized evidence (Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden 16 December 2014, Econvert v. Voith). It stands out for two reasons. First, the court appears to set a low threshold [...]

Requirement of irreparable harm: Swiss Federal Supreme Court puts spokes in appellants‘ wheels in appeals against decisions in summary proceedings

Although this is a patent law blog a recently published decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in an appeal against a dismissed request for a preliminary injunction in the copyright sector is worth being discussed in more detail here. It will make life harder also for petitioners who see their hopes dashed before the Swiss Federal Patent Court and consider filing an appeal.

In its recently published decision dated November 27, 2014 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court made it substantially harder for parties who succumb in summary proceedings to appeal their cases to the Federal Supreme Court. This recent decision concerns a copyright case but it has a significant impact on Swiss patent liti [...]

Amended Guidelines on Independence of the Swiss Federal Patent Court became effective on 1 January 2015 – An inspiring model for the UPC?

As posted here the Swiss Federal Patent Court had to amend its Guidelines on Independence after the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had lifted a decision of the Federal Patent Court concerning the recusal of one of its non-permanent judges on 27 August 2013 in a case concerning the Nespresso coffee capsules.

The revised Guidelines on Independence became effective on 1 January 2015.

The revised Guidelines are not only interesting for the judges and the parties that are involved in proceedings before the Swiss Federal Patent Court but also for those who have to give thought to the implementation of article 7 of the Statute of the Unified Patent Court for the judges pool of the Unified Patent Cour [...]

Want to revoke a patent? Call the inventor

The Italian Supreme Court recently (and surprisingly) said that inventors must be named as co-defendants in revocation actions.

In 2010 I wrote a post concerning the requirement to name inventors as co-defendants in Italian revocation actions. I reported that the Court of Appeal of Milan had established a principle whereby named inventors had to be called in revocation actions and, if they were not, proceedings could not reach the stage of decision. This was based on the then in place provision of Article 122 (4) of the of Italian IP Code, according to which “Any action aimed at the revocation of an industrial property title shall be brought against all persons listed in the register as r [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...