UPC aficionados will be interested to learn that the 16th draft of the Rules of Procedure was unveiled yesterday.
Readers will remember that the previous draft was published on 31 May 2013. Since then, the Drafting Committee has been working on a new draft that may – or may not – accommodate the comments received from stakeholders, including those discussed at the European Judge’s Forum that took place in Venice on 25-26 October 2013. Trying to comment on the 382 Rules of the draft in this very brief blog would be like trying to sum-up the history of mankind in a haiku. So this author will focus his attention on one aspect that appears to be here to stay: the obstinate “opting-out” fee. [...]
Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH and Norgren AG  EWHC 14 (Ch) is an interesting case relating to the valves in stretch blow moulding machines used to make plastic bottles. The patent was alleged to be invalid for both lack of novelty and obviousness, although the Defendants denied that the relevant prior art had actually been made available to the public. In the alternative, the claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement in relation to certain claims of the patent. The trial judge was Roth J, who does not hear many patent cases but is gaining experience all the time.
The sole novelty citation was a fax sent around nine years before the priority date from the head of d [...]
Article 123 (2) EPC and corresponding national provisions prohibit an applicant or patentee from amending a patent application or patent such that its subject-matter extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The statute is the same throughout Europe, but the practice is not always so. An issue where the Case Law of the EPO and the national courts seems to increasingly diverge is the admissibility of intermediate generalisations.
What are intermediate generalisations? Imagine the following exemplary situation: An EP application has a broad claim 1 consisting of features A, B and C. The application further contains several working examples which are directed to various [...]
The readers will recall that on 18 July 2013, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) handed down its controversial judgment in case C‑414/11 Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon. In this judgment the ECJ, making a 180º twist in relation to the criteria endorsed in Opinion 1/1994, in its judgment of 14 December 2000 and in its judgment of 11 September 2007, concluded that TRIPS’ provisions on patents now fall within the realm of the European Union (“EU”) common commercial policy. This is a rather surprising conclusion to reach, taking into account that in paragraph 46 of its judgment of 11 September 2007 the ECJ [...]
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”.