EPLAW Patent Blog

SE - Centraction v. Furåsen and Åss

Centraction AB v. V M Furåsen AB and ÅSS-Processventilation AB, Stockholm District Court, Stockholm, Sweden, 10 December 2010, Case No. T 6886-10

A Swedish importer and vendor of hose reels, Centraction AB (“Centraction”), raised an invalidity claim against the Swedish patent 501 050 granted for a hose reel device invented by V M Furåsen AB (“Furåsen”) and produced and sold by ÅSS-Processventilation AB (“ÅSS”). The proceeding, however, came to mainly concern whether Centraction had intentionally caused an unnecessary litigation and should bear the litigation costs since Furåsen had let the patent lapse before the proceeding was initiated.

NL - Van Beelen Industrie en Handel v. Otter Ultra Low Drag

Van Beelen Industrie en Handel B.V. v. Otter Ultra Low Drag Limited, Court of Appeal The Hague, 30 March 2010, Case No. 105.006.802/01, with thanks to Huib Mars, Aries Advocaten

Van Beelen does not indirectly infringe upon Otter's patent by delivering the so-called 'Stealth Rope' to trawl net makers. The rope is not to be considered as a 'means for working the invention, in respect of an essential part of the invention'. In addition, the rope is to be considered a product generally available in commerce.

The Court of Appeal does not reconsider its earlier decision regarding costs (that decision can be read here). The full costs according to the Enforcement Directive will therefore not be awarded as the proceedings were commenced before the expiry of the implementation term of the Enforcement Directive.

Read the decision (in Dutch) here.

EPO - No-show at oral proceedings before Board of Appeal in order to save costs may turn out to be expensive

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.03, 18 November 2009, Decision No. T 212/07, not to be published in OJ, – Ancon CCL Limited (appellant/opponent) v. Normteq B.V. (respondent/patentee)

In a considerable number of cases, parties summoned to oral proceedings before the EPO do not appear. This is not only detrimental to the efficiency of the work of the EPO but may also cause superfluous costs for the adversary. Whereas, as a rule, each party has to bear its own costs, the departments of the EPO may, for reasons of equity order a different apportionment of costs.

In the reported case, the Board of Appeal had summoned the parties some three months before the date fixed for oral proceedings with a communication which was generally negative with regard to the opponent’s arguments on the issue of lack of novelty. The opponent abstained from commenting in substance and informed the Board one week before the appointed oral proceedings that it would not be attending oral proceedings in view of the high costs involved. The Board cancelled the oral proceedings and the patentee requested an apportionment of costs to cover the non-refundable travel and lodging costs of its representative and of the preparation costs for the oral proceedings.

UK - Jackson Report on English civil litigation costs recommends reform

Jackson Report on English civil litigation costs recommends reform, reported by Ed Barker, Baker & McKenzie

Lord Justice Jackson has published the final report of his wide ranging review of civil litigation costs in England & Wales.  He begins the report with a pithy foreword which sets the tone for the entire report (which runs to some 584 pages):

"In some areas of civil litigation costs are disproportionate and impede access to justice. I therefore propose a coherent package of interlocking reforms, designed to control costs and promote access to justice."

A full copy of the report, which is well worth a read by anyone regularly involved in civil litigation in England & Wales, can be downloaded here:

NL - Lundbeck v. Tiefenbacher, Centrafarm Services and Ratiopharm

H. Lundbeck a/s v. Alfred E. Tiefenbacher GmbH, Centrafarm Services B.V. and Ratiopharm GmbH, costs of procedure, Court of Appeal, The Hague, The Netherlands, 22 December 2009, Docket No. 200.039.432/01

Withdrawn application for the provisional examination of witnesses / expert opinion. Other parties object to such withdrawal if no full costs of the proceedings as based on the Enforcement Directive are paid. The Court of Appeal states that the Enforcement Directive does not distinguish between summons proceedings and application proceedings. Lundbeck's application relates to facts and grounds of a judgment by the District Court of The Hague regarding a patent (which judgment has been appealed) and is (thus) related to the enforcement of an intellectual property right. No room for the application of Article 289 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Lundbeck's application was declared inadmissible. Full costs are awarded (to the amount as agreed between parties).

Read the decision (in Dutch) here.

NL - Van Beelen Industrie en Handel B.V. v. Otter Ultra Low Drag Limited

Van Beelen Industrie en Handel B.V. v. Otter Ultra Low Drag Limited, Court of Appeal The Hague, 8 December 2009, Docket No. 258144/HA ZA 06-277, with thanks to Muriel van den Hazenkamp, Aries Advocaten

The Dutch Court of Appeal refuses to guarantee full costs in patent proceedings filed prior to expiry of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48) implementation deadline. The Court of Appeal refuses to interpret the national law in conformity with the Enforcement Directive since such an interpretation would impede the legal certainty. 

In principle, a party to Dutch legal proceedings is entitled to a guarantee for legal costs in case of a non-Dutch counter party. Van Beelen appealed the decision of the Court of first instance since the Court had only awarded a guarantee for the court-approved standard scale of costs in the proceedings. The Court of first instance had rendered its decision after the expiry of the implementation deadline of the Directive, but before the Dutch Government had taken definitive measures to implement the Directive. The case in first instance was filed prior to the expiry of the implementation deadline.

The Court of Appeal went on to consider that after expiry of the implementation deadline,  the national laws may be interpreted in conformity with the he Enforcement Directive since the norms contained in it are  (albeit open) unconditional and sufficiently precise and since interpretation in conformity with the Directive  (after the implementation deadline) meanwhile became common. Therefore, such interpretation no longer leads to legal uncertainty. This reasoning led to a full cost order in the appeal proceedings (which were filed after expiry of the implementation deadline).

Read the judgment (in Dutch) here.