English

IEF 7793

Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc. vs. Medtronic B.V. c.s.

Klik voor vergrotingDistrict Court of The Hague, 28 August 2008, KG ZA 08-777, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc. vs. Medtronic B.V. c.s

Patent law. Valid divisional, no extension of matter, no combination of measures. Trial partially held behind closed doors. Infringement ban  granted. Procedural costs of €125.463,45 awarded.

"4.79. Abbott having failed to raise the issue of equivalent infringement, and this issue not having been addressed for that reason, as argued by Medtronic, is a line of arguing not adopted by the court for now. To that end it should be noted that Abbott has argued that the Driver stents recovered by the scope of protection provided by EP 842. As pointed out hereinbefore in ground

4.68, the court, when determining the scope of protection of a patent, has to take proper account of equivalent elements, in any case since the entry into effect of EPC 2000 as of 13 December 2007 (‘due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in the claims’), as a result of which he will be able to include such elements in his examination of the case. "

 

Read the entire judgement here.

 

IEF 7788

The Performing Right Society Limited vs. Vereniging Buma.

Distric Court of Haarlem 19 August 2008, LJN: BE8765, The Performing Right Society Limited vs. Vereniging Buma.

Copy rights. Main question: what is is online use of music. Do website owners need permission from dozens of rights agencies, such as Buma?

 “4.14. The single judge charged with urgent cases does not get round to the assessment of the claim under II, as PRS has withdrawn this claim after the hearing after BUMA had sent it a copy of the licence agreement which it concluded with Beatport.com.

 


4.15. The single judge charged with urgent cases will reject the claim under III(a), as BUMA has argued in a sufficiently motivated waythat it is practically impossible to fulfil the claim because the licence fees it receives are calculated by means of
repartition and distributed under entitled parties without a distinction being made between music usage home and abroad and between BUMA-and PRS-repertoire. PRS has furthermore not contradicted that it has never objected to the payments it
received from BUMA.


4.16. The single judge charged with urgent cases will also reject the claim under III(b), as the conducting of conversations on the granting of licences at itself is not unlawful, as long as BUMA does not proceed to the providing of licences for online
music usage of the PRS-repertoire beyond the Netherlands c.a. or the conclusion of agreements in which it grants these licences. This last act is already prohibited for BUMA by the allowance ofthe claim under I.

5.1.    prohibits BUMA with immediate effect to provide or conclude music licences for online usage (via satellite, cable or internet) of the RPS-repertoire beyond the Netherlands c.a. or to put theminto effect,

5.2.    orders Buma to pay the costs ofthese proceedings, until now estimated at EUR 1,155.44 on PRS' side”


Read the entire judgement here.

IEF 7787

House of Lords judgment in Conor v. Angiotech brings UK closer to EPO

Remco de Ranitz (De Ranitz Advocatuur) and Otto Swens (Vondst Advocaten)

“And so yesterday, a bit sudden, there was the ‘Opinions’ decision  of the House of Lords in Conor v. Angiotech which the patent world so anxiously awaited . The well-known English IP weblog www.ipkat.com immediately headed “Breaking news: Angiotech appeal allowed”. Indeed: breaking news, for in the first and second instance Conor was found to be in the right and the patent of Angiotech was invalidated for lack of inventive step. The House of Lords, however, applied a different criterion and subsequently considered the patent valid.

 

(…) The House of Lords, the highest court in the UK undeniably brings English patent law further in line with ‘European’ patent law, in particular regarding inventive step. Amongst others, they criticise (certain applications of ) the ‘obvious to try’ test. Further, for our Dutch readers, it is pleasant to see that the Lords explicitly concur with several of the considerations on inventive step in the judgment of January 17, 2007 by the The Hague District Court in the Dutch case Angiotech v. Conor case, in particular because the English appeal court precisely criticized the inventive step approach of ‘our’ District Court.

(…) Lord Walker in the end, however, does not draw a distinct conclusion from these considerations, and the other Lords do not discuss the ‘obvious to try’ test further. The Lords in particular do not discuss the European criterion for examination of inventive step, the ‘problem solution’ approach. Therefore, this decision can hardly (yet?) contains an explicit choice for the European inventive step approach. Nonetheless, it is crystal clear that the strong emphasis that the Lords place on the ‘expectation of success’ and their criticism on the ‘obvious to try’ test moves UK patent law closer again to the EPO and ‘the continent’.”

Read the article here. (The authors represent Angiotech in Dutch patentprocedures).

IEF 7201

House of Lords judgment in Conor v. Angiotech brings UK closer to EPO

ranitz-swens.gifRemco de Ranitz (De Ranitz Advocatuur) and Otto Swens (Vondst Advocaten)

“And so yesterday, a bit sudden, there was the ‘Opinions’ decision  of the House of Lords in Conor v. Angiotech which the patent world so anxiously awaited . The well-known English IP weblog www.ipkat.com immediately headed “Breaking news: Angiotech appeal allowed”. Indeed: breaking news, for in the first and second instance Conor was found to be in the right and the patent of Angiotech was invalidated for lack of inventive step. The House of Lords, however, applied a different criterion and subsequently considered the patent valid.

(…) The House of Lords, the highest court in the UK undeniably brings English patent law further in line with ‘European’ patent law, in particular regarding inventive step. Amongst others, they criticise (certain applications of ) the ‘obvious to try’ test. Further, for our Dutch readers, it is pleasant to see that the Lords explicitly concur with several of the considerations on inventive step in the judgment of January 17, 2007 by the The Hague District Court in the Dutch case Angiotech v. Conor case, in particular because the English appeal court precisely criticized the inventive step approach of ‘our’ District Court.

(…) Lord Walker in the end, however, does not draw a distinct conclusion from these considerations, and the other Lords do not discuss the ‘obvious to try’ test further. The Lords in particular do not discuss the European criterion for examination of inventive step, the ‘problem solution’ approach. Therefore, this decision can hardly (yet?) contains an explicit choice for the European inventive step approach. Nonetheless, it is crystal clear that the strong emphasis that the Lords place on the ‘expectation of success’ and their criticism on the ‘obvious to try’ test moves UK patent law closer again to the EPO and ‘the continent’.”

Read the article here. (The authors represent Angiotech in Dutch patentprocedures). IEFenglish

IEF 7200

The European Central Bank vs. Document Security Systems, Inc.

District Court of The Hague, 12 March 2008, Case number / Cause-list number: 269923 / HA ZA 06-2495, The European Central Bank versus Document Security Systems, Inc.

By means of a judgment having immediate effect, ECB requests the annulment of European patent 0 455 750 B1, pertaining to a “Method of making a nonreplicable document", for the Netherlands, ordering DSS to pay the procedural costs, including the translation costs. 3.2. The underlying reason for ECB’s claim is that, in its opinion, the patent is null and void as the subject of the patent is not covered by the content of the original application, the invention is not new, and in addition there is a lack of inventive step.

The District Court of The Hague concludes that EP 750 is valid so that its nullification claimed by ECB must be dismissed.

Read the entire judgement here. IEFenglish

IEF 7785

After Primus-Roche and GAT-LUK

Prof.mr. W.A. Hoyng (Howrey): After Primus-Roche and GAT-LUK.A few remarks about the consequences of these decisions in daily practice.

"(…) We think that GAT-LUK and also the Dutch Supreme Court decision have to be interpreted in such a way that the court can deal with infringement questions as long as it does not rule on the validity. We conclude this from the fact that the court is competent to hear the infringement case and does not need to rule on validity in order to make a decision. This may certainly be the case where a defendant denies that he has committed infringement acts in certain or all countries. Furthermore, many technical non infringement arguments do not necessitate a ruling on validity.

 

 

It will be clear that as soon as the infringement question touches upon questions of validity the court could not deal with it. As far as the Gillette or Formstein defense is concerned, this is in our view (in fact) based on invalidity arguments and can therefore not be dealt with by the court.

(…) We therefore conclude the following:

1. Even after GAT-LUK and Primus-Roche, cross-border injunctions remain possible.
2. Such injunctions may be prevented by careful organisation of the sale and distribution of products in Europe;
3. The law in Europe on whether or not a court can grant a pan European injunction in preliminary injunction proceedings has not yet been settled. The position of the Dutch courts that this is possible seems to be correct;
4. It is still not clear what would happen in Europe if an alleged infringer raised invalidity arguments in a case on the merits. A balanced solution as suggested above seems a desirable outcome.”

 

IEF 7783

The European Central Bank vs. Document Security Systems, Inc.

District Court of The Hague, 12 March 2008, Case number / Cause-list number: 269923 / HA ZA 06-2495, The European Central Bank versus Document Security Systems, Inc.

By means of a judgment having immediate effect, ECB requests the annulment of European patent 0 455 750 B1, pertaining to a Method of making a nonreplicable document", for the Netherlands, ordering DSS to pay the procedural costs, including the translation costs. 3.2. The underlying reason for ECBs claim is that, in its opinion, the patent is null and void as the subject of the patent is not covered by the content of the original application, the invention is not new, and in addition there is a lack of inventive step.

The District Court of The Hague concludes that EP 750 is valid so that its nullification claimed by ECB must be dismissed.

Read the entire judgement here.

IEF 7637

The European Central Bank vs. Document Security Systems, Inc.

District Court of The Hague, 12 March 2008, Case number / Cause-list number: 269923 / HA ZA 06-2495, The European Central Bank versus Document Security Systems, Inc. 

By means of a judgment having immediate effect, ECB requests the annulment of European patent 0 455 750 B1, pertaining to a “Method of making a nonreplicable document", for the Netherlands, ordering DSS to pay the procedural costs, including the translation costs. 3.2. The underlying reason for ECB’s claim is that, in its opinion, the patent is null and void as the subject of the patent is not covered by the content of the original application, the invention is not new, and in addition there is a lack of inventive step. 

The District Court of The Hague concludes that EP 750 is valid so that its nullification claimed by ECB must be dismissed.

Read the entire judgement here. IEFenglish