Foreword | 1 |
Acknowledgments | 3 |
Table of Cases | 4 |
I. PATENTABILITY | |
A. Article 52 EPC – Patentable inventions | |
1. Technical character | |
Federal Court of Justice of 24.02.2011 (X ZR 121/09) – Website display | 11 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 28.06.2013 (10/21790) – Mr L. v Publicis Groupe & RATP | 12 |
Paris Court of appeal of 19.03.2014 (10/21042) – Artygraphie c. Cartel | 13 |
2. Excluded subject-matter and activities | |
2.1 Discoveries | |
Paris District Court of 3.07.2014 (10/14406) – Evinerude v Aair Lichens | 15 |
2.2 Computer programs | |
Court of Appeal of 03.05.2013 – HTC v Apple [2013] EWCA Civ 451 | 16 |
Patents Court of 04.09.2013 – Lantana Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2013] EWHC 2673 (Pat) | 19 |
B. Exceptions to patentability | |
1. Breaches of "ordre public" or morality | |
Federal Court of Justice of 27.11.2012 (X ZR 58/07) – Neural progenitor cells II | 21 |
Patents Court of 17.04.2013 – International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents [2013] EWHC 807 (Ch) | 23 |
2. Biological inventions | |
The Hague District Court of 08.05.2013 – Taste of Nature Holding B.V. v Cresco Handels-B.V. | 26 |
C. Novelty | |
1. State of the art | |
Board of Appeal of the Austrian Patent Office of 22.11.2012 (B 1/2011) | 28 |
Supreme Patent and Trademark Chamber of 08.05.2013 (OBp 2/13) | 29 |
Mons Commercial Court of 03.11.2011 (A/10/792) – Valéo v Lexmond Trading | 30 |
Federal Court of Justice of 15.10.2013 (X ZR 41/11) – Image display device | 31 |
Patents Court of 22.07.2014 -AgaMedical Corporation v Occlutech (UK) Ltd [2014] EWHC 2506 (Pat) | 32 |
2. Chemical inventions | |
Court of Cassation of 29.11.2011 [10-24786] – Negma v Biogaran | 35 |
3. Novelty of use – Article 54(5) EPC | |
Federal Court of Justice of 24.09.2013 (X ZR 40/12) – Fatty acids | 36 |
Federal Court of Justice of 25.02.2014 (X ZB 5/13) – Collagenase I | 37 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 12.03.2014 (12/07203) – Eli Lilly v Teva | 39 |
D. Inventive step | |
1. Assessment of inventive step | |
Federal Court of Justice of 22.11.2011 (X ZR 58/10) – E-Mail via SMS | 41 |
Federal Court of Justice of 11.03.2014 (X ZR 139/10) – Paint supply system | 43 |
Court of Cassation of 02.11.2011 [10-30907] – Groupe Vicard SA v Tonnellerie Ludonnaise SA | 44 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 12.02.2014 (12/16589) – Anne D v Sarl AD / Hermès Sellier SA | 45 |
Patents Court of 27.07.2012 – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Contour Aerospace Ltd and others [2012] EWHC 2153 (Pat) | 46 |
Court of Appeal of 10.10.2012 – MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234 | 48 |
Court of Appeal of 12.12.2012 – Novartis AG v Generics (UK) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1623 | 51 |
Supreme Court of 07.06.2013 – Lundbeck v Tiefenbacher/Centrafarm – Escitalopram | 53 |
2. Problem-solution approach | |
Supreme Patent and Trademark Chamber of 27.06.2012 (Op 1/12) | 54 |
3. Technical effect | |
Supreme Patent and Trademark Chamber of 27.11.2013 (Op 3/13) | 56 |
Liège Commercial Court of 28.06.2012 (A/11/3039) – Aerocrine v SA Medisoft | 57 |
Federal Court of Justice of 18.12.2012 (X ZR 3/12) – Route planning | 58 |
Federal Patent Court of 04.04.2013 (2 Ni 59/11 and 2 Ni 64/11) – Slide to unlock | 59 |
Federal Court of Justice of 23.04.2013 (X ZR 27/12) – Vehicle navigation system | 61 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 26.04.2013 (12/07634) – Core/Miral v Axxom/Castorama/Browaeys Brame | 62 |
Court of Appeal of 29.07.2013 – Generics [UK] Ltd t/a Mylan v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 925 | 63 |
4. Skilled person | |
Federal Court of Justice of 12.12.2012 (X ZR 134/11) – Polymer composition | 66 |
Court of Cassation of 13.12.2011 [10-27413] – SAS Technip France v SA ITP | 66 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 13.01.2012 (10/17727) – Sandoz v Eli Lilly | 67 |
Court of Cassation of 20.11.2012 [11-18440] – Boegli gravures v Darsail | 69 |
E. Industrial applicability | |
Supreme Court of 01.11.2011 – Human Genome Sciences Inc v eli Lilly & Co. [2011] UKSC 51 | 69 |
F. Double patenting | |
Paris District Court of 20.03.2012 (09/12706) – Teva v Eli Lilly | 73 |
Patents Court of 20.06.2014 – Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Nintendo of Europe GmbH [2014] EWHC 1959 (Pat) | 74 |
II. SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE | |
Federal Court of Justice of 11.09.2013 (X ZB 8/12) – Dipeptidyl-peptidase inhibitors | 79 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 21.03.2012 (09/23852) – Arcelormittal v Voestalpine | 80 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 23.03.2012 (10/22368) – VSL International v Freyssinet International | 81 |
Patents Court of 15.12.2011 – Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v (1) Kennametal UK Ltd, (2) Kennametal European GmbH [2011] EWHC 3311 (Pat) | 83 |
Court of Appeal of 05.09.2012 – Eli Lily & Co v Human Genome Sciences (HGS) Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1185 | 86 |
III. CLAIMS | |
A. Clarity of claims | |
Mons Commercial Court of 21 February 2013 (RG A/09/663) – Occhio v Malvern | 89 |
Federal Patent Court of 27.03.2012 (4 Ni 24/10) – Coffee machine | 91 |
Paris District Court of 13.02.2014 (13/00455) – Virbac v Merial | 92 |
B. Interpretation of claims and extent of protection | |
Supreme Patent and Trademark Chamber of 27.02.2013 (Op 3/12) | 93 |
Federal Court of Justice of 17.07.2012 (X ZR 117/11) – Polymer foam | 94 |
Supreme Court of 04.04.2014 – Medinol v Abbott | 96 |
Borgarting Court of Appeal of 24.01.2014 – Krka v Astrazeneca –Esomeprazole | 97 |
C. Independent and dependent claims | |
Court of Cassation of 20.05.2014 [13-10061] – X v Sig Sauer | 98 |
D. Amendments to claims | |
Mons Court of Appeal of 12 January 2012 (2011/RG/00402) – Malvern v Occhio | 99 |
Federal Court of Justice of 21.06.2011 (X ZR 43/09) – Integration element | 101 |
Federal Court of Justice of 09.04.2013 (X ZR 130/11) – Scrambling method | 102 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 7.06.2013 (10/15598) – Security of Documents (Sood) v European Central Bank (ECB) | 104 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 25.10.2013 (13/06455) – Syngenta v INPI Director General | 106 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 20.12.2013 (12/14147) – Icotex v Saertex | 108 |
England and Wales Court of Appeal of 10.05.2012 – Nokia OYJ v IPCom GmbH & Co KG [2012] EWCA Civ 567 | 110 |
Court of Appeal of 28.01.2014 – AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 40 | 113 |
Borgarting Court of Appeal of 06.01.2014 – STS Gruppen AS v Stillasgruppen AS and Stillastjenester | 115 |
IV. PRIORITY | |
Federal Court of Justice of 14.08.2012 (X ZR 3/10) – Non-UV-sensitive printing plate | 117 |
Federal Court of Justice of 11.02.2014 (X ZR 107/12) – Communication channel | 119 |
Court of Cassation of 31.01.2012 [11-10924] – Go sport v Time Sport international | 120 |
Patents Court of 10.07.2013 – HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) | 122 |
Court of Appeal of 10.10.2012 – MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1234 | 123 |
Patents Court of 07.03.2013 – Samsung electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and anr [2013] EWC 467 (Pat) | 124 |
Patents Court of 22.04.2013 – Nestec S.A. v Dualit Ltd [2013] EWHC 923 (Pat) | 126 |
Patents Court of 10.07.2013 – HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) | 129 |
V. EUROPEAN PATENTS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS | |
1. Danisco/Novozymes (EP 1 804 592) | |
Danish High Court of 25.05.2012 – Danisco A/S (today a part of DuPont) v Novozymes A/S | 132 |
Rechtbank 'S-Gravenhage of 22.06.2011 – Danisco v Novozymes | 133 |
2. Quetiapine (EP 0 907 364) | |
Antwerp District Court of 20.12.13 – Sandoz v AstraZeneca | 135 |
Federal Patent Court of 13.11.2012, joined cases 3 Ni 43/10 (EP), 3 Ni 24/11 (EP), 3 Ni 25/11 (EP) – Quetiapine | 136 |
Federal Court of Justice of 13.01.2015 (X ZR 41/13) – Quetiapine | 138 |
Patents Court of 22.03.2012 – Teva UK Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2012] EWHC 655 (Pat) | 139 |
Court of Appeal of 30.04.2013 – AstraZeneca AB v Hexal [2013] EWCA Civ 454 | 141 |
The Hague Regional Court of 10.06.2014 – Accord v AstraZeneca | 142 |
3. Olanzapine (EP 0 454 436) | |
Supreme Patent and Trademark Chamber of 29.06.2011 (Op 3/11) | 144 |
The Hague Court of Appeal of 27.09.2011 – Eli Lilly v Ratiopharm | 145 |
4. Occlusion device (EP 0 808 138) | |
Supreme Court of 25.05.2012 – Aga v Occlutech | 146 |
District Court of Stockholm of 04.03.2011 – Occlutech GmbH v AGA Medical Corporation, AGA Medical Corporation v Occlutech International AB and Tor Peters (Joint cases) | 148 |
5. Calcipotriol (EP 0 679 154) | |
Federal Court of Justice of 15.05.2012 (X ZR 98/09) Calcipotriol monohydrate | 149 |
Turin Ordinary Court of 11.02.2011 – Sandoz v Leo Pharma – calcipotriol monohydrate | 150 |
The Hague Regional Court of Appeal of 09.04.2013 – Sandoz v Leo Pharma | 151 |
District Court of Stockholm of 20.05.2011 – Leo v Sandoz | 153 |
6. St Gobain/Knauf (EP 0 399 320) | |
Liège Court of Appeal of 19.09.2013 (2011/RG/1503) – Saint-Gobain v Knauf | 155 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 16.05.2014 (12/06678) – Knauf c. St Gobain | 156 |
VI. INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS | |
1. Judicial status of the EPO Boards of Appeal | |
Court of Appeal of Madrid (Section 28) of 04.03.2013 – Actavis Group et al. v Merck Sharp & Dohme (17/2013) | 159 |
2. EPO decisions, the Convention and national courts | |
Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) of 27.04.2011 – LEK Pharma v Warnre- Lambert – Atorvastatina (274/2011) | 160 |
Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15) of 24.07.2014 – Merck & Co. v Laboratorios Alter et al. (Auto 93/2014) | 161 |
Court of Cassation of 03.04.2012 [10-21084] – M. G v R | 162 |
Paris Court of Appeal of 03.07.2013 (10/22679) – Sotira v CPO | 163 |
Patents Court of 27 July 2012 – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Contour Aerospace Ltd and Ors [2012] EWHC 2153 (Pat) | 164 |
Court of Appeal of 20.12.2013 – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ld (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1713 | 164 |
The Hague District Court of 19.12.2013 – Unilever N.V. v Procter & Gamble | 167 |
3. Stay of national proceedings | |
Supreme Court of 03.07.2013 – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 | 168 |
Court of Appeal of 21.11.2013 – IPCom GmbH v HTC Co Europe Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1496 | 170 |
Court of Appeal of 11.03.2014 – Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 250 | 173 |
Patents Court of 11 and 24.07.2014 – Actavis Group PTC EHF v Pharmacia LLC [2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat) and [2014] EWHC 2611 (Pat), respectively | 175 |
4. Reservation to the EPC: scope of the Spanish reservation under Article 167(2)(a) EPC 1973 | |
Supreme Court (Civil Chamber) of 10.05.2012 – Laboratorios Cinfa et al. v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd (309/2011) | 178 |
