Gepubliceerd op vrijdag 13 oktober 2006
IEF 2748
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Commentaar

Francis van Velsen (Simmons & Simmons):  Further comment on CFS Bakel vs. Stork Titan. Gepubliceerd op ipgeek.blogspot.com, in aansluiting op een eerder commentaar van Simon Dack (eerder bericht + arrest hier).

“In its decision making, the Supreme Court for the larger part has followed the opinion of the Advocate-General Huydecoper. The Advocate-General in his opinion emphasizes that given the fact that the patent survived examination before the European Patent Office – which requires quite considerable efforts from the later patentee, and particularly serves the interests of the competition – 'one can not ask much more' from a patentee to verify that its patent is valid. The Advocate-General makes an exception to the rule, however, in case the later patentee withheld relevant information from the patent office, or acquires new information after grant which sheds a new light on the validity of the patent as granted.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not rule on these particular aspects. It therefore remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court decision is to be interpreted in accordance also with this part of the AG's opinion (which would definitively constitute a shift in case law).”

Lees het volledige commentaar hier.