News
Telecoms update | Provisions judge denies Fractus a preliminary injunction against Xiaomi et al.
On 10 December 2019, the Provisions Judge of the District Court of The Hague denied a cross-border preliminary injunction claimed by FRACTUS S.A. (‘Fractus’) against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (‘Xiaomi’) and several Dutch smartphone vendors for the alleged infringement of Fractus’ patent EP 1 592 083 (‘EP ‘083’). According to Fractus the antennas of various
Read more ›
Pharma Update | Tadalafil dose patent invalid: Court of Appeal confirms judgment 1st instance
The Court of Appeal of The Hague has confirmed the judgment in first instance, in which ICOS’ patent EP 1 173 181 B3 (‘EP ‘181’), claiming a 1-5 mg dosage range for tadalafil, was invalidated. EP ‘181 relates to tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in a specific (low) dosage range. This finding was
Read more ›
Telecoms update: ‘Better Network’ campaign KPN not unlawful, rules District Court
Our Telecoms Update of 30 July 2019 is about the recent decision of the The Hague District Court in KPN v T-Mobile. The Court ruled that KPN’s advertising campaign ‘Better Network, Better Life’ did not constitute unlawful comparative advertising and rejected T-Mobile claims in full. The judgment means that KPN is allowed to continue its very successful advertising campaign. BarentsKrans represented KPN in this case.
Read more ›
Telecoms update: The Hague Court of Appeal injuncts another unwilling licensee
Less than two months after the decision in Philips/Asustek, the The Hague Court of Appeal again grants an injunction against a SEP-user. Following the interim decision in which the SEP invoked by Philips was declared valid and infringed, the Court of Appeal rendered a final decision on 2 July 2019 in which Wiko’s FRAND defence
Read more ›
BarentsKrans again recommended in leading IAM Patent 1000 ranking
The international rankings of ‘IAM Patent 1000’ comprise of an overview of the most prominent law firms in the field of patent law and patent litigation. The listing is composed by means of substantial research by IAM. Firms are assessed on aspects such as knowledge, market share and the quality of rendered services. The assessment
Read more ›
Pharma update: pemetrexed tromethamine does not infringe pemetrexed disodium patent
In its judgment of 19 June 2019, the District Court of The Hague ruled that Fresenius Kabi’s pemetrexed tromethamine falls outside the scope of protection of Eli Lilly’s patent for pemetrexed disodium. This final relief decision deviates from earlier decisions in interim relief proceedings and decisions by several foreign courts. Eli Lilly (“Lilly”) markets the
Read more ›
Dutch Appeal Court grants injunction against unwilling licensee
On 7 May 2019 the Court of Appeal The Hague rendered its decision in a SEP dispute between Philips and Asustek. The Court found that Asustek did not act in good faith in the negotiations about a FRAND license and granted Philips an injunction The dispute between Philips and Asustek has been ongoing since 2015,
Read more ›
Interim decision Court of Appeal in SEP proceedings
In a recent interim decision, the The Hague Court of Appeal cleared the road for a full-fledged FRAND decision by declaring the litigated SEP both valid and infringed. A separate, final decision on whether an injunction can be granted against French smartphone manufacturer Wiko SAS will be given after parties have had the opportunity to
Read more ›
Legal 500 highlights 24 BarentsKrans-laywers in the 2019-edition
This week Legal 500 released their 2019 rankings. As in previous years, BarentsKrans is mentioned several times in this leading, international guide for the legal profession. Again we are beyond proud and grateful of these honourable mentions. Developing Legal 500 rankings Legal 500 highlights those lawyers that provide the most cutting edge and innovative advice
Read more ›
Pharmacist’s exemption in Dutch Patent Act
On 1 February 2019 the so-called pharmacist’s exemption was introduced in article 53 (c) of the Dutch Patent Act (“Rijksoctrooiwet”). Pharmacists are now, under certain conditions, allowed to prepare medicinal products that are covered by a patent. This undermines the patentee’s exclusive right. What is the scope of this new exemption? Article 53 (c) of
Read more ›
