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 [...]

“Que le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir” – From Montesquieu to Battistelli

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu knew it all as early as 1748: “Experience teaches that every human being who has the power tends to abuse it. Therefore, it is necessary that the power sets limits to the power. There are three things in every state authority: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. There is no freedom, if they are not separated from each other.”

Okay, why should a French President in 2014 bother about what one of his learned countrymen wrote in a book in the baroque times? Perhaps because it still matters. On 3 December 2014 the President of the EPO had one member of the Boards of Appeal escorted out of the Office by his “Investigation Unit” and imposed a “ [...]

Public Prior Use of a Pharmaceutical Preparation (T 2458/09)

Although more than 20 years have passed since the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision G 1/92, there is still little case law which provides guidance on how to establish the structure and properties of a particular medicament in a manner so as to be able to rely on the same as a piece of prior art in opposition proceedings.

In G 1/92, the Enlarged Board rejected the notion of T 93/89 that the ingredients of a commercially available product are not made available to the public unless there is reason for experts to investigate its composition by chemical analysis, and it held that the chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the pub [...]

Not accepting an undertaking entails an intention to market the allegedly infringing product

On 12 September 2014, the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15) handed down a decision confirming a preliminary injunction preventing a Spanish company from marketing capsules claimed to be compatible with what is known as the Nespresso® system, which raises a handful of interesting legal points.

The first point of interest discussed was whether or not the appeal proceedings against the first instance decision which had ordered a preliminary injunction should be discontinued after the Court of First Instance (Barcelona Commercial Court number 5) handed down a judgment on the merits, upholding the infringement complaint.  After the judgment in the main proceedings came out, the complainant [...]

Is the Federal Patent Court obliged to appoint a technical expert?

by Bernward Zollner

In a recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court dated 26 August 2014 (docket-No. X ZB 19/12) a further appeal of an applicant pursuing his patent application was rejected. Already the German Patent and Trademark Office had rejected the patent application. The Appeal of the applicant against this decision had been rejected by the Federal Patent Court. Against this decision the applicant submitted a further appeal to the Federal Supreme Court arguing that the Federal Patent Court should have appointed a technical expert. The Federal Supreme Court has rejected this further appeal.

In the reasoning it is pointed out that the Technical Senate of the Federal Patent Court does [...]

The invalidity defense in Danish PI proceedings – the times are changing

The Danish Maritime & Commercial Court recently granted an interlocutory injunction in a patent dispute relating to 2nd medical use claims (Novartis v. Orifarm Generics case A-0006-14)).

The Novartis patent claim language included a specification for a TTS (transdermal therapeutic system) for administering Rivastigmine in the treatment of Alzheimers:

“Rivastigmine for use in a method of preventing, treating or delaying progression of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease,
wherein the rivastigmine is administered in a TTS and the starting dose is that of a bilayer TTS of 5 cm2 with a
loaded dose of 9 mg rivastigmine, wherein one layer: …” (highlighted by me).

When Orifarm Generics launched a TT [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...