News

Telecoms update | District Court rejects infringement claim

On 30 December 2020 (published 13 January 2021), the District Court of The Hague (“the Court”) rendered a judgment in final relief proceedings initiated by Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Incorporated (“ASSIA”) against Koninklijke KPN N.V., Telfort Zakelijk B.V., XS4ALL Internet B.V., KPN B.V. (collectively “KPN”) and Nokia Solutions and Networks Nederland B.V. (“Nokia”) regarding
Read more ›

Pharma update | Dutch Court of Appeal: Pemetrexed patent Eli Lilly valid and infringed

In its judgment of 27 October 2020, the Court of Appeal of The Hague found that the generic pemetrexed tromethamine product of Fresenius Kabi Nederland B.V. (“Fresenius”) infringes EP 1 313 508 (‘EP‘508’), held by Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”). Yet again a turn of events in Dutch case law, where this issue has been
Read more ›

Pharma update | AstraZeneca ordered to compensate damage health insurer Menzis for enforcing invalid patent

In a groundbreaking judgment of 14 October 2020, the District Court of The Hague ruled that AstraZeneca AB (‘AstraZeneca’) must compensate health insurer Menzis Zorgverzekeraar NV (‘Menzis’) for having enforced a patent that was later invalidated. AstraZeneca owned European patent EP 0 907 364 (“EP 364”) for a sustained-release (XR) formulation of quetiapine, an active
Read more ›

Rankings Chambers Global 2020: again great results for BarentsKrans

Chambers Global 2020 was published today, the guide that provides a global overview of five international jurisdictions. BarentsKrans has a number of wonderful mentions for Corporate/M&A, Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution. Feedback from clients and peers The yearly Chambers ranking lists are based upon feedback received from clients as well as peer reviews. Chambers is
Read more ›

Pharma update: Indirect infringement of Swiss type claims is possible

In its judgment of 3 November 2017 in the case between Merck Sharp & Dohme (‘MSD’) and Teva, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807) that indirect infringement of a ‘Swiss type’ second medical use patent claim is possible. In addition, the Supreme Court found that there is no difference in the scope of protection of second
Read more ›