Friday, July 1, 2016

From Around the Blogs: FRAND in Germany, Recovery of Costs Under the UPC, Damages in Canada

1.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Hetti Hilge has published a post titled German FRAND Update (available here).  The post discusses the district court decisions to date as well as the January 13, 2016 decision of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, which I blogged about here.  In addition, it provides a brief discussion of and link to a more recent decision that I hadn't seen yet, namely the May 31, 2016 judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, which according to the author shares the view of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf.  I'll take a look at the new decision and report back soon.  For other discussion of the German FRAND decisions to date on this blog, see, e.g., here.

2.  The EPLaw Blog has published a short post linking to the Draft Decision of the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court on the Scale of Recoverable Cost Ceilings (June 16, 2016).  Consistent with article 69 of the UPC, the decision contemplates that the prevailing party generally will be able to recover its legal costs, up to certain specified levels, but also confers some discretion on the court to raise or lower these amounts under certain circumstances.

3.  Norman Siebrasse recently published a post on Sufficient Description titled Miscellaneous Issues in Levofloxacin Damages (available here), which (as the title suggests) discusses the damages issues as resolved by the trial court in an infringement action brought by Janssen Inc. against generic competitor Teva (opinion here).  According to the post, the judge allowed damages for post-patent expiry sales with respect to which the patent owner would have enjoyed higher profits but for the infringement, given that the defendant would have needed time to ramp up production.  In addition, it allowed damages for price suppression which persisted even after the defendant had exited the market for the drug in question; "the burden lies on the defendant to prove that mitigation was possible and the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to do so, and Teva had not discharged its burden in this regard."

And since today is July 1, Happy Canada Day/Joyeuse Fête du Canada to our friends up north!

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.