Remove 2009 Remove Litigation Remove Patent Prosecution
article thumbnail

Keeping up with Belgian patent litigation: Year case law review 2021

The IPKat

The winds of a busy Belgian court term blows through the IPKat's wild ancestor's mane (c) Christopher Stothers 'Tis the season for a look at the cases that were in 2021 from around Europe and what they mean for the IP litigation themes in those jurisdictions now that the dust has settled in 2022. The decisions we (arbitrarily!)

article thumbnail

Fish & Richardson Elevates 17 Attorneys to Principal 

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Dr. Caleb Bates focuses his practice on intellectual property law, with an emphasis on patent prosecution, strategic counseling, and worldwide patent portfolio management in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. Will Freeman focuses his practice on patent litigation in U.S. He received his J.D.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Delhi High Court grants interim injunction to Novartis against Natco’s use of Revolade patent 

SpicyIP

The debate at the crux of the dispute is, or rather was, the dichotomy between deference to the validity of a granted patent vis-a-vis the challenge to its validity and consequently disregarding the exclusivity granted to it, in litigation. The Drug and the patent. The Litigation. Background . See here and here ).

Patent 105
article thumbnail

Foreign Prosecution History: To Admit, Or Not To Admit, That Remains a Puzzle To Canadian Courts

Canadian Intellectual Property Blog

of the Patent Act has brought about a significant shift in the Canadian approach to file wrapper estoppel by enabling the introduction of a patent’s prosecution history during claim construction. and whether it should cover communications between patentees and foreign patent offices. TA Foods Ltd. 2021 FCA 7 Section 53.1

article thumbnail

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

SpicyIP

In the Chemtura judgement (2009) concerning section 64(1)(m) (revocation for not furnishing Section 8 information), The Court emphasized on strict interpretation and application of the obligation. The implications of the amended Rules and TEPA are discussed later in the post.) However, in 2014, the Delhi High Court in Sukesh Behl V.

Patent 72