HOFFMANN EITLE English

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar. Hier gelangen Sie zur deutschen Homepage.

This page isn’t available in English. Here, you’ll get to the English homepage.

このページには日本語版がございません。

Esta página no está disponible en español - Aquí podrá acceder a la página web en español.

Questa pagina non è disponibile in italiano. Qui si accede alla homepage in italiano.

Cette page n’est pas disponible en français. Ce lien vous conduira à la page d'accueil en français.

해당 페이지는 한국어가 지원되지 않습니다. 이 곳을 클릭하시면 한국어 버전 홈페이지로 이동하게 됩니다.

Initial situation

Our client, a multinational corporation based in the US, was sued for patent infringement by a European competitor. The lawsuit was filed in the competitor's home country and our client was faced with the potential grant of a preliminary injunction against them in a commercially important market. Our client wanted to defend itself against the lawsuit and parallel to this try to have the competitor’s patent revoked. It was decided to oppose the patent at the EPO and in nullity actions in several key European jurisdictions. This resulted in an escalation of the dispute and further infringement suits in national courts.

Case Study Chemistry

Action taken

A team of chemical patent attorneys, including a native speaker from the country where the initial preliminary injunction suit was pending, was formed to handle this case. We were responsible for the EPO proceedings and for liaising with the local lawyers in the many countries where litigation was ongoing to ensure that the arguments presented in the various courts were consistent. In several countries where the litigation was handled by attorneys at law with no technical training, we provided support and advice on the technical aspects of the case.

Outcome

Although the preliminary injunction could not be avoided, it was lifted on appeal. In EPO proceedings, we managed to have the patent revoked, a decision which was subsequently confirmed by the EPO Boards of Appeal. The EPO opposition case was one of the fastest ever, as a result of HOFFMANN EITLE applying pressure to keep the case moving and the use of accelerated proceedings. The case was also remarkable in that the evidence obtained through discovery proceedings in a national court was released for use at the EPO before a decision on its relevance had been made in the national court. This is most unusual as discovery evidence is usually confidential.