1. Giulia Pasqualetto and Maria Giulia de Rosa published a post on EPLaw titled IT-Claims Limitation of a Granted Patent in PI Proceedings. The authors discuss a November 2021 decision of the Court of Milan, involving a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Bossini S.p.A., owner of a European Patent on "a mixer group with detachable hand-held shower for dispensing water." According to the authors, the court appointed an expert, who concluded that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty; as a result, the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, if I understand correctly, Bossini amended the patent by adding an additional limitation, pursuant to IPC article 79. The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's refusal to order the expert to take the amendment into consideration, concluding that the relevant statutory provision (article 79(3)) did not require the court in the PI proceeding to take the amendment into consideration.
2. Henry Yang published a post on IPKat titled Has the Court of Appeal signalled the end of English judicial influence of Arrow declarations? The post discusses Teva v. Novartis, a December 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, in which Arnold LJ states that it is not appropriate for an English court to issue a declaration of invalidity "solely for the purpose of influencing a decision by a foreign court on an issue governed by the law of the foreign court."
3. On Law360, Britain Eakin published an article titled The Top Patent Damages Awards of 2022. It includes a chart showing the top five U.S. awards in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Although there were no billion-dollar awards this past year, the award in VLSI v. Intel (previously noted on this blog here) came close.
No comments:
Post a Comment