Milan court 23 September 2010 - 17 December 2010, Giellepi Chemicals S.R.L. vs. Meda Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
This judgment is apparently the first one which discusses the admissibility of a disclaimer in a patent claim in Italy. Such admissibility has been confirmed substantially to the same extent accepted by the European patent office (pages 20 to 22). The court dismissed the challenging party's argument that on one hand the Italian law does not provide for such disclaimers, on the other hand that a disclaimer introduces some new matter (albeit in negative terms) which was not disclosed in the original application.
Milan court 20 July 2010 - 20 July 2010 and Milan court 23 September 2010 - 24 November 2010, HL Display AB vs. Synco spa
Both decisions related to a request for preliminary injunction based on two European patents, relating to mounting systems for label holders and to a profile moulding for shop shelves. One of defendant's arguments was that the sales of the products in dispute had been known to plaintiff for several years, so that there was really no urgency justifying a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff had replied that an opposition was previously pending against one of the patents, so that caution had suggested to await the end of the opposition procedure. Defendant counterreplied that the Italian law admits precautionary proceedings even when a patent application is still pending, so that nothing would have barred plaintiff from taking action long before. If plaintiff had decided to wait due to the uncertainty of the opposition procedure, that evidently meant that the problem was not sufficiently serious or urgent.
Florence court of appeal 23 April 2010 - 10 September 2010, Maurizio Bindi vs. Schreurs & Co. Export B.V.
The court of appeal confirmed the first judgment which had found infringement of a plant variety patent belonging to the appellee. In particular, the court rejected the appellant's argument that there could be no infringement because his plants were covered by another patent belonging to himself, so that the variety was necessarily another one. The court argued on one the hand that there was no proof that the plants sold by appellant really belonged to his patented variety, and on the other hand that appellant's patent did not necessarily entitle him to sell the plants in dispute, particularly because such patent might be invalid (pages 28, 30). In another part of this judgment, the court of appeal reduced the damage compensation ordered in the first instance.
Rheon Automatic Machinery Co. LTD. v. Tecno Stamp S.R.L., damages proceedings, Venice Court, Italy, 22 May 2009, Docket No. 3469/2004, with thanks to Sandro Hassan, Siblegal
The Venice Court discusses the criteria to assess damages for patent infringement.
The previous interim judgment in this case, which acknowledged infringement and ordered continuation of the proceedings for damage assessment, is published in IIC 6/2008, page 730.
Saip & Schyller S.p.A., Schneider Electric and Industries Sas and Schneider Electric S.p.A. re 'Optima', appeal from decision rejecting a preliminary injunction, Milan Court, Italy, 14 May 2009, Docket No. 5439/09, With thanks to Sandro Hassan, Siblegal
Rejected appeal from a decision rejecting a request for preliminary injunction due to doubts both as to infringement and as to validity (one of the patents involved is EP 1811603, which has recently been revoked by the EPO).
Gipron Giuseppe Pronzati S.P.A. v. Masters S.R.L., Italian Supreme Court, Italy, 23 April 2009, Docket No. 19688/2009, with thanks to Sandro Hassan, Siblegal
The Supreme Court confirms that damages for infringements can only be claimed as from the date on which a patent application was either laid open to the public or formally served upon the alleged infringer. Informal knowledge from other sources is in principle irrelevant (pages 34-37).
Recent Comments