In the last instance, the Consiglio di Stato (the Italian supreme administrative court) established that Pfizer did commit abuse of a dominant position while it obtained and enforced in Italy its SPC protection over latanoprost. While the news was spread a few weeks ago already (the decision is dated 14 January 2014), the reasons of the decision have just been made available (they bear the date of 12 February 2014).
It is sufficient to recall that in September 2012, the Regional Administrative Court – in reversing t [...]
by Hetti Hilge
The Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has set up a second Senate (panel of judges) that is specifically competent for patent infringement litigation. The Higher Regional Court is the appeal instance for first instance judgments of the Regional Court Düsseldorf in patent cases.
Already at the beginning of 2013, a third civil chamber that is specifically competent for patent infringement cases has been set up at the District Court Düsseldorf as a result of the increasing number of patent infringement complaints at this venue (see our previous post on the announcement). With about 600 cases per year, the District Court of Düsseldorf is the most popular court for patent infrin [...]
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent Office (PTAB) issued eight decisions in Inter Partes review and Covered Business Method proceedings, in each case invalidating at least some of the challenged claims of the patent at issue. That brings to 15 the total number of patents invalidated in an Inter Partes review or Covered Business Method proceeding since those proceedings became available on September 16, 2012, and keeps at 0 the number of proceedings decided in favor of the patent holder.
While many aspects of post-grant proceedings are still evolving, we have seen enough interim rulings and final decisions to draw a few general conclusions.
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 later finding of the biological relationships underlying the activity of a drug does not constitute a new teaching for technical action if the indication, the dosage and the way of using the drug coincide with an the prior disclosed use of a drug for the treatment of a disease (confirmed by FCJ 9 June 2011 – X ZR 68/08, GRUR 2011, 999 – “Memantine”). The selection of a value within a known range does not render an invention patentable, unless for special circumstances (e.g. the dosage instruction achieves a particular technical effect vis à vis the prior art).
The FCJ held that the right to claim priority, which is in fact the right to file a follow-up application, can be transferred to a third party who was not the applicant of the earlier application. This transfer is governed by the law of the earlier application, in this case German law. Neither German law nor the EPC requires a specific form for such a transfer. Therefore, a transfer is also possible implicitly.