The Oslo District Court held that the expired Norwegian patent 306452 (“452 Patent”) was invalid due to lack of inventive step, which implied that its supplementary protection certificate SPC014 was invalid as well. The court also found the 176 Patent invalid.
When does prior private use give a party the right to continue using the invention? Any person may claim personal possession on the ground of Article L. 613-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code providing that said person proves possession of the invention prior to the filing date or priority date of the patent. In a decision of 2 May 2014, the Paris Court of First Instance rejected a prior personal possession claim considering that the implementation plans of the invention are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the required prior possession.
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) held that where a defendant in a patent infringement action has been found to be liable for infringement in a decision that is preliminarily enforceable but subject to appeal, it is generally necessary to suspend enforcement of this decision under Secs. 719 (2) and 707 Code of Civil Procedure against security if the patent in suit has been held invalid by the Federal Patent Court (first instance) in a nullity action. This also applies in further appeal proceedings before the FCJ (second instance).
The doctrine of equivalence has seen some kind of renaissance in German case law recently. In short words, there are three questions to be asked to decide for equivalent infringement if there is no literal infringement. The first one being the question about the effect of the different solution. Do the means used to solve the problem underlying the invention objectively have the same effect? If so, would this different solution have been discovered by the man skilled in the art at the time of the priority date? The objective of this second question to be asked is whether it was kind of obvious to use the different approach instead even though it does not fall under the literal meaning of the [...]
The FCJ held that the priority of an earlier application may be rightfully claimed if the technical information described for a specific embodiment or otherwise in in the application is seen by the skilled person as an example for the more general invention disclosed in the later application and if this more general teaching was disclosed in the prior application as part of the invention.
The FCJ held that legal provisions in force at the priority date must be taken into consideration when assessing novelty and inventive step of an invention. These legal provisions may incite the skilled person to work in a certain direction so that this makes the invention obvious.