Entscheidungen
Rechtsgrundsatzinternational jurisdiction examined of own motion where required by Union lawAlle zurücksetzen
| Datum | Fall | Kammer | Verfahrensart | Antrag | Ausgang | Zusammenfassung |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-17 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Nichtigkeit (Hauptsache) | Nichtig erklärt | The Munich Section of the Central Division revoked European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College) in its entirety, with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited. The Court found that the main claim lacked novelty over the prior art disclosure 'Göransson', and that all eight auxiliary requests (AR1–8) also lacked inventive step over Göransson. Harvard's auxiliary requests to amend the patent were all rejected. Harvard as the unsuccessful party must bear NanoString's legal costs. |
| 2024-01-31 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | The Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 103/105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by NanoString Technologies Europe against Harvard concerning EP 2 794 928. The order recorded directions from the interim conference, including admission of document D46 with a response period for the defendant, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000. |
| 2024-01-31 | ACT_551180/2023 | Munich CD | Revocation Action | Prozessual | Nur prozessual | Procedural order from Munich Central Division (judge-rapporteur András Kupecz) following the interim conference in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning EP 2 794 928. The order addresses admissibility of document D46 (filed as prior art in the reply): the defendant withdrew its objection, D46 was admitted into proceedings, and the defendant was given six weeks to respond in writing. Further, the judge-rapporteur indicated the case value for cost purposes. No substantive ruling. |