Firm News
Alexander von Mühlendahl wins award for his lifetime achievement and top trademark lawyer guide nomination
Patent Law
1. German Federal Supreme Court: A publication in which a chemical compound is described without any other statements relating to a specific enantiomer does not clearly reveal that the disclosed teaching also includes individual enantiomers (decision of September 10, 2009 – Case Xa ZR 130/07 – Escitalopram)
Reported by Dr. Christopher Brückner
2. German Federal Supreme Court on independent pre-trial proceedings for preserving evidence (decision of November 16, 2009 – Case X ZB 37/08 – Lichtbogenschnürung/Electric arc lacing)
Reported by Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy and Jörg Wahl
3. German Federal Supreme Court on the interpretation of a patent claim in view of the technical problem stated in the description (decision of February 4, 2010 – Case Xa ZR 36/08 – Gelenkanordnung/Articulation arrangement)
Reported by Joachim Mader
4. German Federal Supreme Court closes gap on practice of European Patent Office with respect to computer implemented inventions (decision of April 22, 2010 – Case Xa ZB 20/08 – Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung/Dynamic generation of documents)
Reported by Johannes Lang
5. European Patent Office: Enlarged Board of Appeal renders opinion on “Programs for computers” in relation to a set of questions concerning the patentability of programs for computers (Opinion of May 12, 2010 – Case G 3/08)
Reported by Dr. Stefan Steinbrener
6. European Patent Office: Opposition Division rules on disclosure requirements for genetic resources taking into account obligations from the Convention on Biological Diversity (decision of April 20, 2010)
Reported by Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher
Trademark Law
7. Court of Justice of the European Union: Unauthorised sale of “perfume testers” constitutes trademark infringement (decision of June 3, 2010 – Case C-127/09 – Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG)
Reported by Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl, LL.M.
8. German Federal Supreme Court approves award of favourable damages for rights owner in parallel trade case (decision of July 29, 2009 – Case I ZR 87/07 – Zoladex)
Reported by Dr. Stefan Abel
9. German Federal Supreme Court: Offering an imitation of perfumes “as such” can be considered as comparative advertising (decision of October 1, 2009 – Case I ZR 94/07 – Oracle)
Reported by Pascal Böhner
10. Cologne Appeal Court: Competitor may take unfair advantage of original’s reputation even without causing a deception as to origin (decision of January 15, 2010 – Case 6 U 131/09 – Eisbär/Polar Bear)
Reported by Verena Wintergerst, LL.M.
Design Law
11. General Court: First decision on conflict between a prior trademark and a later Community design (decision of May 12, 2010 – Case T-148/08 – Beifa Group v OHIM and Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer)
Reported by Dr. Henning Hartwig
12. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Board of Appeal): OHIM confirms invalidation of the Crocs design (decision of March 26, 2010 – Case R 9/2008-3 – Crocs v Holey Soles)
Reported by Dr. Henning Hartwig
Domain Name Law
13. Court of Justice of the European Union on when a .eu domain name has been registered in bad faith (decision of June 3, 2010 – Case C-569/08 – Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht)
Reported by Dietrich Beier
Plant Variety Law
14. Court of Justice of the European Union: First decision on the validity of a Community plant variety right (decision of April 15, 2010 – Case C-38/09 P – Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office)
Reported by Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl, LL.M.
