Search results for

The jury trial is one of the most challenging aspects of the US patent system for overseas users. James W Gould reveals the key issues litigants need to address when choosing between jury and bench trials

In a recent case, the English Court of Appeal looked again at the issue of the purposive construction of a patent (Wheatley & Anor v Drillsafe Ltd & Anors). Wheatley´ s patent claimed a centre-less hole cutter, which is a hole cutter with no central drill for forming a pilot hole. This is especially suitable for forming threaded holes in, for example, underground petrol tanks without the need to open the tanks. The defendants´ drill had a semi-penetrating retractable probe within the cutting tool to prevent the cutter from wandering. The defendants argued that this probe meant that the drill was a variant which fell outside the claims of the patent.

The Andean Pact Decision 344, applicable in the five countries of the Andean Community (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela) provides in article 1 that the member countries shall grant patents to inventions of either products and/or processes in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, have inventive level, and have an industrial use.

The Polish Parliament has just finished its work on the Intellectual Property Law passed on March 17 2000. Nevertheless, the law can enter into force only after being signed by the President of Poland. But the President has doubts about the constitutionality of a rule added by Senate at the last stage of its work.

On July 28 2000, the Singapore Court of Appeal delivered its first patent infringement judgment under the new Singapore Patents Act, dismissing an appeal by Merck & Co Inc (Merck) to inter alia reinstate some of the product claims in its patent for a purer form of a known substance, Lovastatin (Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd (Civil Appeal No 9 of 2000)). The Lovastatin covered by Merck´ s patent contained less than 0.2% dimeric impurity.

Any lawyer, in any part of the world might find that a common question asked by clients is how to recovery damages in a litigation case.

So far the German practice as to patentability of computer program-related inventions has been rather strict, in particular with regard to the requirement of a technical character which was denied for most program-related inventions unless there was an interaction between the programmed method or computer with an external technical means. By two recent decisions, however, the Federal Supreme Court considerably extended the area in which program-related inventions will be considered as patentable technical inventions.

The Finnish Patent Law was amended on 15 July 2000. The law specifies the principles of patentability, definition of the invention and the scope of the patent in accordance with the EU biotechnology directive. Principally the Finnish patent practice has been in accordance with the directive for some time.

The doctrine of contributory infringement was first introduced into Australian patent statute by the Patents Act 1990. Section 117 of the Act provides:

A recent Full Federal Court decision in Australia has held that the contributory infringement provisions found in the Patents Act 1990 are effective in relation to method claims.