(Indirect) infringement

The Supreme Court held that the patent claiming a device to be mounted on ovens used to industrially drain pasta was infringed by application of the doctrine of equivalence. A summary of this case…

The Supreme Court revoked claims 1 to 4, and found claim 5 to be novel and inventive but not infringed, because the result of defendant's machine was not obtained by the claimed means. The court…

The Supreme Court held that Article 68 (3) IP Code relating to prior use, sets forth both a "quantitative" and a "qualitative" limit, in the sense that it "serves to identify the business behavior…

On 20 March 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered its decision in the case relating to raloxifene, a molecule useful for treating or preventing osteoporosis in post-menopausal women…

By decision of 5 April 2012, no. 5497, the Italian Supreme Court resolved an interesting case concerning the application of Article 68 (3) Italian IP Code, according to which “Whoever, in the course…

The Italian case law on infringement by equivalent is rather scant and, until very recently, only one decision had been issued on this matter by the Supreme Court: 13 January 2004, no. 257, Lisec v…

The District Court of Duesseldorf will set up a third division (panel of judges) for patent infringement litigation. In addition, the Duesseldorf Court of Appeal will at least staff up, and possibly…

On the defendant’s side, knowing what the patent dispute is all about is essential for your strategy. Not only do you need to adjust your non-infringement arguments to the plaintiff’s assertions…

On 20 January 2012 the Court of Appeal in England heard the case of Apimed Medical Honey v Brightwake Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 5. Apimed owned European Patent (UK) 1,237,561 (‘the Patent’) for an…