"The BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report" provides brief information about the firm´s news and activities, latest European and German IP case law as well as the latest developments in IP law.

For a free subscription of our IP Report newsletter please click here.

Patent Law
1. German Federal Supreme Court: A publication describing a chemical compound without any statements as 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)

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)

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)

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)

5. European Patent Office: Enlarged Board of Appeal’s opinion on “Programs for computers” relating to a set of questions on the patentability of such programs (opinion of May 12, 2010 – Case G 3/08)

6. EPO Opposition Division rules on disclosure requirements for genetic resources taking into account obligations from the Convention on Biological Diversity (decision of April 20, 2010)

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) 

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) 

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) 

10. Cologne Appeal Court: Competitor may take unfair advantage of original’s reputation without causing deception as to origin (decision of January 15, 2010 – Case 6 U 131/09 – Eisbär/Polar Bear)

Design Law
11. General Court of the European Union: First decision on conflict between prior mark and later design (decision of May 12, 2010 – Case T-148/08 – Beifa Group v OHIM and Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhäußer)

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)

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)

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG: Three attorneys reach partner status and a former member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO joins the firm as a consultant

Jochen Pagenberg to be inducted into the IP HALL OF FAME

Patent Law
1. Court of Justice of the European Union: Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not preclude the grant of a SPC certificate to the holder of a basic patent if one or more certificates have already been granted for the same product (decision of September 9, 2009 – Case C-482/07)

2. German Federal Supreme Court on the relevance of correctly formulating the objective problem and of supplementary indications for inventiveness (decision of November 11, 2009 – Case Xa ZR 22/06 –Three-seamed tubular foil sachet)

3. German Federal Supreme Court confirms broad responsibility of forwarding agents for handled goods (decision of September 17, 2009 – Case Xa ZR 2/08 – MP3-player)

4. European Patent Office (Enlarged Board of Appeal) on the scope of exception to patentability for inventions related to surgery (decision of February 15, 2010 – Case G 1/07 – Treatment by surgery)

5. European Patent Office (Enlarged Board of Appeal) decides on questions concerning the language regime (decision of February 16, 2010 – Case G 4/08 – Langue de la procedure)

6. European Patent Office (Enlarged Board of Appeal) on the patentability of second medical use inventions (decision of February 19, 2010 – Case G2/08 – Dosage Regime)

7. Hamburg Appeal Court: Transit of goods through Germany is not an act of patent infringement (decision of December 29, 2009 – 3 U 242/05 – Transit of DVD-players)

8. Dusseldorf Appeal Court on the infringement of a method claim in Germany when its features are partially realized abroad (decision of December 10, 2009 – Case I-2 U 51/08 – Method of processing telephone calls)

Trademark Law
9. Court of Justice of the European Union: Registration of a slogan as a Community trademark (decision of January 21, 2010 – Case C-398/08 P – Audi AG v OHIM – VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK)

10. Court of Justice of the European Union: Cancellation on absolute grounds – Standing to request cancellation – Descriptiveness – (decision of February 25, 2010 – Case C-408/08 P – Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie. SNC v OHIM – COLOR EDITION)

11. Court of Justice of the European Union: Liability of advertising keyword providers – Liability of purchasers of keywords (decision of March 23, 2010 – joined Cases C-236/08, 237/08 and 238/08 – Google France SARL & Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al – GOOGLE ADWORDS)

12. German Federal Patent Court: European Court of Justice’s doctrine of neutralization does not apply to national trademarks (decision of April 21, 2009 – 24 W [pat] 37/08 –Xxero/Zero)

Design Law
13. General Court: Three key lessons from the Court’s first decision on validity of a registered Community design (decision of March 18, 2010 – Case T-9/07 – Grupo Promer Mon
Graphic SA v OHIM and PepsiCo Inc)

14. OHIM (Board of Appeal) again invalidates Community design for being solely dictated by its technical function (decision of November 12, 2009 – R 1114/2007-3 – Packaging for foodstuffs)

Domain Name Law
15. Munich Appeal Court on the liability of “domain name parking” platforms (decision of
August 13, 2009 – Case 6 U 5869/07 – Domain name parking)