Most law firms primarily focus on Patent Litigation cases in intellectual property practices. The litigation is nothing but defending ones own work from the company or any other person who duplicated it. The inventor whose invention is stealed and sold in the market without his/her knowledge then they can raise a litigation case against he person who sell the product without the permission of the inventor.
This is applicable only after the patent is granted or only to the patentee. The patent litigation may help the inventor in asking for the compensation of the product to which he/ she has patented. For example in European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), or formally the Draft Agreement on the establishment of a litigation system, is a proposed patent law agreement aimed at creating an "optional protocol to the .EPC which would commit its signatory states to an integrated judicial system, including uniform rules of procedure and a common appeal court”. In 1999, a Working Party on Litigation was set up by member states of the EPO to propose an optional agreement on the creation of such a central judicial system. At its fifth meeting on 19 and 20 November 2003, the Working Party came up with a draft agreement and a draft statute for the European Court. If the agreement enters into force, this would create a new international organization with roughly the same competences as the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Currently, once granted, a European patent is enforceable on a country-by-country basis. In addition, once the 9-month opposition period is terminated, third parties wanting to invalidate, it must institute revocation proceedings in each country where it is in force. In 2006, the European Commission launched a public consultation on future policy in Europe, where the EPLA featured prominently next to the community patent, harmonization and mutual recognition of national and general issues. Both proponents and critics of the EPLA spoke out at the ensuing hearing on July 12, 2006.
Proponents claim the present enforcement situation leads to high litigation and revocation costs for holders and third parties, to legal uncertainty (the same European may be revoked in United Kingdom while upheld in Germany because of the territorial principle after grant), cross-border injunctions and forum shopping. Proponents claim this reduces the incentives to apply for a European and the situation is a burden on the competitiveness of the European economy, compared to the situation in the United States. While a European single market is in place, there are still no centrally-enforceable patents within the European Union. Only national systems and a European system providing nationally-enforceable European, instituted by the EPC, exist. The EPLA is said to be an alternative to the stalled community patent proposal as it aims to solve similar problems.
Some of the litigation cases below are given for Example they are, Case 1: ABTOX, in two cases is against Johnson & Johnson involving plasma steriles. For this trial court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of ABTOX on the two patents asserted by Johnson & Johnson. The summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal. Subsequently, summary judgment was again granted in favor of our client in ABTOX vs. Johnson & Johnson. In MDT Corporation vs. ABTOX, Inc., defended ABTOX against patent infringement charges on two patents relating to plasma steriles. After motions for summary judgment and a mini-trial, the Court held the patents not infringed and dismissed the case. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision on appeal.
Join Free Patent Lessons Course
