Klunker (Staging)

Urgency requirement for preliminary injunctions in patent disputes (S 2018-006 – Coil spring)

Anyone who wants to combat patent infringements efficiently tries to enforce their rights with a temporary injunction.When is the urgency requirement fulfilled according to the jurisprudence of the Federal Patent Court of Switzerland? And when has the applicant forfeited his right to urgency? On September 13, 2018, CSEM Centre Suisse d’Electronique et de Microtechnique SA

Urgency requirement for preliminary injunctions in patent disputes (S 2018-006 – Coil spring) Read More »

Issue 2019/1 – State of the art

Every innovation builds on the shoulders of what already exists. Developers usually observe the market and then search for promising opportunities for improvement. Increasingly, attempts are also being made to use the patent literature for new ideas. How can and should you use the patent literature for your own Patent Application? Innovations very often arise

Issue 2019/1 – State of the art Read More »

Calculation of damages (CAFC Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton)

The damage caused by a patent infringement is usually difficult to prove. It is therefore also accepted in the USA to assume a hypothetical license negotiation (license analogy). This raises two important questions: How is the added value caused by the invention to be determined? To what is the license rate related? The CAFC ruling

Calculation of damages (CAFC Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton) Read More »

New supreme court for patent disputes

China wants to become an innovation-based nation. IP Rights, especially Patents and Utility Models, are of great importance for this goal. However, in order for patent law to fulfill its function, it is important that uniform criteria regarding Protectability and infringement are applied. At present, first-instance judgments in patent disputes and the like can be

New supreme court for patent disputes Read More »

Lack of inventive step where disadvantages are accepted (BGH X ZR 50/16 – seat belt tensioner)

In Germany, too, it has become established to assess the inventive step on the basis of the problem-solution approach. Advantages of the invention on the one hand and disadvantages of the prior art on the other play a central role. It is assumed that the person skilled in the art wishes to avoid known disadvantages.

Lack of inventive step where disadvantages are accepted (BGH X ZR 50/16 – seat belt tensioner) Read More »

Proof of lack of support for broad claims (Amgen v. Sanofi – CAFC)

Broad claims must be supported by a representative number of examples. The skilled person should be able to carry out the invention on the priority date. Evidence to show whether the skilled person could carry out the invention based on the prior art must predate the priority date. A US court of first instance had

Proof of lack of support for broad claims (Amgen v. Sanofi – CAFC) Read More »

Scroll to Top