Monday, August 10, 2020

From Around the Web

1. I fell behind a bit in checking out the EPLaw Blog, so I missed a couple of important posts.  One, from March 20, 2020, noted the publication by the European Patent Academy of a study titled Patent Enforcement in Europe:  A Country-by Country Overview.  The study is over 500 pages long, and covers every country within the EPC.  I may have more to say about it after I looked through it more carefully.

2.  Another EPLaw post I missed was by Nadine Westermeyer and Stefan Lieck, titled DE-"Leiterklemme"--Requirements for the Reasons for a Preliminary Injunction in Patent Litigation.  The post links to a translation and remarks on the Bardehle Pagenberg firm's website, which in turn links to the original judgment.  According to the post, the judgment (a December 2019 judgment of the Munich Court of Appeals) overturns previous case law from that district, and conforms to case law from Karlsruhe and Düsseldorf, to the effect that a patentee may obtain a preliminary injunction only if, inter alia, "the patent in suit has already survived first instance opposition or nullity proceedings or if an exception applies."  For another EPLaw post on this case, with a link to further analysis by Philipp Rastemborski, see here.

3.  Also relevant to the topic of interim injunctions are Norman Siebrasse's two posts on the decision of Canada's Federal Court of Appeal in Arctic Cat, Inc v Bombardier Recreational Products Inc 2020 FCA 116, discussing the criteria for granting a stay pending appeal (see here and here).  Professor Siebrasse is surprised that the court denied the application for a stay without any discussion whether the patentee (Bombardier) had provided an undertaking in damages for the harm the defendant (Arctic Cat) might incur in the event the judgment for the patentee is reversed on appeal.  He also discusses whether the question of potential harm to third parties should be taken into account as part of the irreparable harm or balance of convenience stage of the analysis--the relevance being that, according to some Federal Court decisions, a court will reach the balance of convenience stage only if it concludes that there is irreparable harm.

4.  Gowling WLG has made available an interesting webinar titled The Game Begins:  Strategies for the Early Stages of Patent Litigation--The Claimant's View.  The webinar discusses, among other matters, the likelihood (or not) of obtaining preliminary relief in various countries, including China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.  Hat tip to Norman Siebrasse for calling this to my attention.

5.  The German firm Kather Augenstein will be hosting an English language webinar on August 20 on Sisvel v. Haier.  Information here.  For previous discussion on this blog, see here and here

6.  Also relevant to this last item, on JUVE Patent Matthieu Klos published a piece titled Haier files constitutional complaint over FRAND judgment.  According to the article, Haier is asking the German "Constitutional Court to review whether the decision of the Federal Court of Justice . . . is compatible with European law."

No comments:

Post a Comment