IPCOM GMBH & CO KG v VODAFONE GROUP PLC

2020 ◽  
Vol 137 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-250
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Infringement

Abstract H1 Patents – Standards essential patents – Technical trial – Construction – Validity – Conditional and unconditional amendments – Added matter – Extension of protection – Obviousness – Essentiality – Infringement – Indirect infringement – Defences – Crown use – De minimis use – Declarations of non-infringement

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS INC v FIBROGEN, INC

2020 ◽  
Vol 137 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 571-709
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Essential Element ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Off Label Use ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
General Application ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Indirect Infringement ◽  
State Of Mind ◽  
Undue Burden ◽  
Label Use

Abstract H1 Patents – European patents – Pharmaceuticals – Treatment of anaemia – Revocation – Infringement – Construction – Obviousness – Obvious to try – Reasonable expectation of success – Hindsight – Expert evidence – Sequential unmasking – Insufficiency – Excessive claim breadth – Uncertainty – Identification of technical contribution – Principles of general application – Plausibility – Undue burden – AgrEvo obviousness – Equivalence – File prosecution history – Process limited product claims – Indirect infringement – Means relating to an essential element of the invention – Whether suitable for putting and intended to put invention into effect – “Off-label” use – State of mind of defendants – Intentions of prescribing clinicians – Quia timet claims – Whether stay of infringement claim appropriate

Multi-party patent infringement litigation in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-195
Author(s):  
You-hua Liu ◽  
Min Xu ◽  
Bin-wu Qin
Keyword(s):  
Legal Liability ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Indirect Infringement ◽  
The Relationship

Recently, parties have begun to implement patents separately to avoid legal liability in China. Multi-party infringing behaviours are more complicated to legally characterize than single-party patent infringement. Before the recently proposed legislative reform, the Patent Law of China did not clearly define indirect infringement. Chinese courts usually apply the joint torts rules to deal with those cases. However, by mixing the rule of joint injurious act with the rule of indirect patent infringement, the courts tend to confuse the two. Moreover, the newly drafted Revision of Patent Law, though it proposes adopting the indirect infringement concept, still borrows the joint torts rules to allocate liabilities. In these circumstances, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between joint torts and indirect infringement, and thus to clarify the rules for multi-party patent infringement.

Indirect infringement

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 290-291
Author(s):  
M. Le Dinh ◽  
I. Karet
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Infringement

Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC

2018 ◽  
Vol 135 (12) ◽  
pp. 831-926
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Full Width ◽  
Central Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Indirect Infringement ◽  
Post Trial ◽  
Direct Infringement

Abstract Patents – Swiss-form claims – Pregabalin – Use in the manufacture or preparation of a medicament for the treating of pain – Construction – Validity – Infringement – Meaning of “for treating” neuropathic pain – Whether central neuropathic pain included – Insufficiency – Biogen insufficiency – Plausibility – Whether plausibility required across full width of claim – Nature of the plausibility requirement – Direct infringement under s.60(1)(b) – Whether intention a necessary element – Nature of the infringement test in relation to claims in Swiss form – Manufacturer liability – “Downstream” liability – Whether subjective intention required – Reasonable foreseeability – The role of packaging – Indirect infringement – Amendment – Post-trial validating amendments – Abuse of process – Discretion – Appeal to Supreme Court

Right to prevent the indirect use of the invention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann ◽  
Klaus Grabinski
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Intention To Use ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Indirect Infringement

Applying Art 142(1) EPC (not Art 149a(1)(a) EPC) the CMSs have harmonized the law on indirect infringement applied by the UPC and during the transitional period also by the national courts (Introduction to UPCA, mn 98 ff). Before the creation of Art 26 CPC, on which—albeit in significantly modified form—Art 26 UPCA is based, the legal situation in Germany was heterogeneous. In Germany, the case law of the Reichsgericht had developed a separate legal institution of indirect patent infringement based on general tort law. Objectively, a means was required to achieve the particular purpose of an individual invention. In a subjective respect, negligence on the part of the supplier was required (imputed knowledge (Kennenmüssen) of the intention to use the means for putting the invention into effect), which, however, was not compatible with the requirements of general tort law (intentional participation in an intentional deed). In other European countries a similar case law also developed, in some instances at an objective level (Denmark), and in some instances with subjective requirements (Netherlands: knowledge).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document