Menu
Browse Options
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 [...]

Specialized IP Courts in China: One Giant Step?

On August 31, 2014 the Chinese legislature approved a resolution to establish specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. By early November, the Beijing IP Court was operational and had begun to take cases, with 28 being filed in the first four working days.

bj ip court

The Guangzhou IP Court is expected to be operational around December 15, 2014 and the Shanghai IP Court in January 2015. Some proclaim this as a giant leap forward in China’s IP protection landscape. Anticipation is building. But will it live up to the expectations? Let’s take a look.

Background
Unbeknownst to some, China has had specialized tribunals to adjudicate IP cases for years. Currently, there are about 560 IP [...]

To suspend or not to suspend – Bundesgerichtshof on bifurcation

by Hetti Hilge

In two recent and surprising decisions the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) clarified the effects of a first instance decision nullifying the patent in suit on the enforcement of a parallel infringement finding (including an injunction) and, upon second review, remedied what it considers an unintended oversight by the legislator (“Planwidrige Regelungslücke”) in the specific circumstances of patent litigation and bifurcation. Effectively “overruling” its own previous decision in the very same case (Microsoft vs Motorola), the court now ordered the temporary suspension of the enforcement of an appeal court judgment finding for infringement, against t [...]

“Self-adhesive tape” – You better limit your Swiss patents in good time

The juxtapositon of patent limitations in national nullity proceedings and before national patent offices on the one hand and according to article 105a EPC on the other hand is a hotly debated issue not only in Switzerland.

In a recently published decision of 2 June 2014 (4A_541/2013), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had to decide – inter alia – whether the limitation of the European Patent 1 508 436 according to article 105a EPC which only took place after the revocation of the Swiss portion of the patent by the Federal Patent Court must still be taken into account.

In brief, claimant requested the nullity of EP 1 508 436 before the Swiss Federal Patent Court.

The patent relates [...]

Chairman Between the Chairs -The Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal R0012/19-

Almost everyday someone posts something about the Unified Patent Court or a seminar is offered about the “newest” developments. In fact nobody is able to predict whether the system will “work”. It is said that in order “to be successful” the system needs to be efficient, speedy and affordable. It is also said that it will largely depend on the qualification and experience of the future UPC judges whether the UPC will be accepted by its “customers”. While this is certainly true to some extent one should keep in mind that it is up to the lawmaker to provide the rules for the proceedings balancing efficiency with justice and -at least evenly important- to provide sufficient fund [...]

English Patents Court grants extra-territorial DNIs

Patent litigators around Europe will be taking note of the latest significant development from the English Patents Court in the case of Actavis v Eli Lilly [2014] EWHC 1511 (Pat) (judgment dated 15 May 2014), in which the English Court decided to grant declarations of non-infringement (DNIs) for three foreign designations of a European Patent in addition to that for the UK.  The decision of Mr Justice Arnold, the most senior UK patents judge at first instance, is wide-ranging and merits careful analysis by litigators throughout Europe in light of the potential impact on cross-jurisdictional litigation strategies.  Thus, the authors make no apology for this comparatively lengthy analysis or [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...