by Anja Petersen-Padberg
The Federal Court of Justice decided in the “Electric Kettle” case (25.06.2014, docket X ZR 72/13) that the placing of goods in transit proceedings does not infringe a patent right in Germany as the country of transit. The court stressed that it is of no relevance whether the goods were placed in so-called “T1″ external transit proceedings or in “T2″ transit proceedings where goods are declared to be released for free circulation on the market of the European Union and are forwarded without sealing. Patent infringement may only be assumed if the goods are subject to a sales transaction in the transit country or if the goods are imported for this purpose. This must be [...]
In a surprise move, the Italian Ministry of Economic Development made a formal call last week on stakeholders to share their view as to what Italy should do with the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent (UP) system. Italy is the only European country which has signed the UPC Agreement, but has stayed out of the enhanced cooperation within the EU leading to creation of the UP.
The Ministry wanted to know what the most favourable option is for stakeholders, including employers’ associations, patent attorneys and universities: 1) Italy to join the enhanced cooperation and to ratify the UPC Treaty; 2) Italy to remain adverse to the Unitary Patent, but to ratify the UPC Treaty; or 3) I [...]
For those who thought that patent litigation was only relevant for big pharma or cutting-edge telecom devices, it may be of interest to learn about a relatively recent judgment from the Court of Appeal of A Coruña that has resolved a fierce dispute around patents protecting mollusc cleaning machines. A Coruña is one of the main cities on the coast of Galicia, one of the gastronomic paradises of European seafood lovers. So it is not surprising that the dispute revolved around four machines that the defendant had acquired for the purpose of cleaning molluscs.
In its judgment of 11 September 2014, the Court of Appeal of A Coruña dismissed the appeal filed by the owner of two patents that pro [...]
by Stephan Disser
The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) has just issued its written decision in the case “Repaglinid” (X ZR 128/09). As far as can be seen, the decision is not yet available on the FCJ’s website www.bundesgerichtshof.de. The FCJ rejected the patent proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Patent Court revoking the German part of EP 0 589 874 for lack of inventive step. The decision contains some interesting aspects regarding the assessment of inventive step by the FCJ in the pharma field and in general.
Claimed in the patent-in-suit is the use of an enantiomer (Repaglinide) as active substance in the preparation of a long-term antidiabetic agent charact [...]
We are delighted to announce that on 12 February 2015 Kluwer Law International is hosting a free webinar by Pierre Véron on the Unified Patent Court.
Wolters Kluwer present this webinar by Pierre Véron, Attorney-at-law, Véron & Associés, Paris, Honorary President of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), Member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure, Member of the Expert Panel of the Unified Patent Court. He will comment on:
This question has been on the minds of many European IP litigation stakeholders since January 26, 2015. On that date, the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in United Video Properties v. Telenet referred some preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) regarding the (in)compatibility of Belgium’s system of capped recovery of lawyers’ fees with article 14 of the IP Enforcement Directive. This article provides for the recovery of reasonable and proportionate legal and other costs by the party prevailing in an IP case.
Recovering lawyers’ fees in Belgian litigation, in particular when it relates to intellectual property (“IP”), is an old sore. Many assume [...]