STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions Reasonable Number of Auxiliary Requests – Guidance From the NBRD In Edwards v Meril, concerning EP 3 769 722, the NBRD addressed the issue of what constitutes a “reasonable number” of auxiliary requests for claim amendment. In this case, the patent holder submitted 11 auxiliary requests, along with ten additional requests that were identical in sub - stance except for the deletion of dependent claims. The Division considered that this fell within the bounds of what could be deemed a reason - able number of auxiliary requests, particularly in light of the large number of validity attacks raised by the revocation claimant. This outcome aligns with local procedural practice, where no strict numerical limit is imposed on the number of auxiliary requests that may formally be sub - mitted by a patent holder during proceedings. The division’s approach thus appears to have been influenced by national procedural tradi - tions, reflecting a pragmatic view in the face of complex revocation strategies. 3.6 Court of Appeal Substantive
In each of these cases, the panel has included a technically qualified judge. All hearings have lasted a full day and followed a detailed schedule set by the Divisional Panel. The structure typically includes an introduction by the Panel, followed by the counterclaim for revocation and the infringement action, with alternating presentations and responses by the parties in segments of one hour or 30 minutes, concluding with final pleadings. Ahead of the hearings, the Division has, at least in some cases, issued instructions to the parties highlighting specific issues it wished to address. These have included matters such as added matter in amended patent claims, and whether such amendments overcome revocation objec - tions. In the infringement proceedings, issues have included the defendant’s distribution chain, and whether one among several alleged infring - ers was in fact involved. The Division has also addressed the interpretation of certain claim features specifically identified by the panel, as well as issues of proportionality and the public interest – such as patients’ access to adequate medical treatment – when considering injunctive relief or other remedies. In at least one case, the Division has also shared its preliminary views on certain points – for example, that the patent-in-dispute could not be upheld in its granted form, but could be main - tained in amended form in accordance with one of several auxiliary requests. 4.2 Key Procedural Issues Procedural Themes Emerging from Early NBRD Cases As outlined in 3.1 Topics Covered , a number of legal issues have already been addressed in the cases before the NBRD. Below, several matters
Jurisprudence Not applicable.
4. Procedural Issues 4.1 Hearing Structure
The NBRD has, to date, held substantive hear - ings in four cases. These are: Abbott v Dexcom concerning EP 3 977 921, Edwards v Meril con - cerning EP 3 769 722, Texport v Sioen concern - ing EP 2 186 428, and Viking Arm v Stanley Black & Decker concerning EP 3 953 541.
129 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook