A couple of developments in Europe that may be of interest: 1) The long awaited United Patent Court is scheduled to open its doors and accept cases as of April 1, 2023; and 2) the EPO is abolishing the “10-day rule” for responding to deadlines, effectively reducing the time available to respond.
Here are two recent foreign decisions that may be of interest:
- Huawei v. ZTE – The European Court of Justice issued a decision on standard essential patents (SEPs) relating to LTE technology and whether seeking an injunction on patents with FRAND terms was an abuse of dominance, stating among other things, “in order to prevent an action for a prohibitory injunction or for the recall of products from being regarded as abusive, the proprietor of an SEP must comply with conditions which seek to ensure a fair balance between the interests concerned.”
- Amgen v. Sandoz – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a divided decision on the ‘patent dance’ scheme for biosimilars in the United States holding that Sandoz was not required to disclose its application to the innovator but that notice could not be given until after receiving FDA approval, extending the period of exclusivity.
Earlier today, the European Court of Justice held that under European law individuals have the right to request that Google remove certain links that appear when someone searches for their name. The Court considered that Google’s activities were ‘processing of personal data” within Europe and that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.
The European Court of Justice released a decision last week in SABAM vs Netlog (C-360/10) denying a request that a social network site install general filters against the exchange of copyrighted music and videos. In Canadian copyright news, Bill C-11, the copyright amendment Bill went to committee with a schedule to review the bill by the end of March.
The European Court of Justice issued a judgment in Scarlet v. SADAM (C‑70/10) deciding an injunction requiring general content filtering by an ISP for possible copyright infringing materials contravened EU directives.
In a decision released today, the EU Court of Justice ruled in Brustle v. Greenpeace C-34/10 that processes requiring the use of human embryos, broadly defined, as base material even if the description does not refer to the use of human embryos are unpatentable in Europe. Continue reading EU Court of Justice limits patentability of embryonic research