The Patent Litigation Law Review: Denmark

Overview

All patent litigation in Denmark is handled in the first instance by a specialist intellectual property (IP) court – the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen, which includes tribunals comprising one to three legal judges and two to four lay judges, being either patent agents or commercial persons. The only exception is actions for seeking evidence of an infringement, which are handled by the bailiff's courts associated with the 18 city courts spread around the country.

Denmark is a fairly litigious country in relation to patents, despite its small size. This most likely stems from the fact that the cost of litigation is not extremely high, combined with Denmark being a highly technically developed country with many specialist industries, particularly in the pharmaceutical field, with high revenues to be obtained owing to relatively high prices on medicinal products.

Recently, courts have dealt with a number of cases involving patents for secondary medical use and the consequences of having obtained unjustified interlocutory relief. In several cases, the second medical use patents have been invalidated, and the defendant has been awarded compensation for lost sales. Furthermore, courts have continuously used the doctrine of equivalents in patent litigation.

Types of patent

It is currently possible to obtain patent protection in Denmark through three different systems (soon to be four). It is also possible to apply for a utility model.

The first option is a Danish national patent granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. The system only covers the Kingdom of Denmark, including the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Some later changes to the law have not been implemented in the Faroe Islands or Greenland. The application must contain a written description of the invention, the patent claim and a summary. The submitted application is the object of a thorough test.

Under Danish patent law, patent registrations cannot be obtained for certain types of invention. Computer software can only be covered by patent protection to the extent that the software forms part of a technical solution that is using the computer software as a part of it. The doctrine to this rule is that software cannot be granted protection unless it has a technical result that provides some kind of technical contribution. The same applies to business methods – a patent for a business method cannot be granted unless the business method includes some sort of technical result.

It is not possible to obtain a patent for methods for surgical or therapeutic treatment or for determination of diagnoses practised on humans or animals. The reasoning behind this is that they are not regarded as inventions. However, it is possible to obtain patent protection for products, substances and compounds for use in any of the above-mentioned methods.

Second, a European patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) may cover Denmark and be valid in Denmark to the extent that the patent has been validated in Denmark. This is also considered a national patent; therefore, it only allows enforceable patent protection for the countries where validation is made. The EPO assesses whether the requirements for patentability are fulfilled.

Third, Denmark has ratified the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 1978, making it part of the International Patent System. This has also resulted in a national patent, allowing patent protection for the designated countries. In Denmark, the Nordic Patent Institute or the EPO have the authority to assess the novelty requirement for the patent applications. Thereafter, the application must be transferred to each designated country that performs the patentability assessment. This process is handled by the Danish Patent and Trademark Office.

In 2012, the EU Commission adopted the Unified Patent Regulations currently covering 26 Member States, including Denmark. This system, which entered into force on 20 January 2013, allows for the issuance of a single patent covering all participating Member States. The patent will be issued by the EPO in Munich. As at the time of writing, the system is not up and running because the unified patent is closely linked to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, which will create a supranational court system to handle all disputes stemming from a unified patent. The UPC Agreement will only enter into force when 13 Member States, including Germany and France, have ratified the Agreement. The ratifications from those Member States are expected to be completed in autumn 2021. The UPC estimates that it will start operating in 2022.

It is possible to extend patent protection for certain types of patents covering products for which extensive government control is applied, such as pharmaceutical products and plant protection products, through a supplementary protection certificate (SPC). The SPC system is regulated through EU Regulation Nos. 469/2009 and 1610/96, and covers the whole of the European Union. The system allows for an extension of patent protection for the subject matter for an additional period of up to five years after expiry of the original patent; however, the length of the supplemental grant depends on the length of the period extending from the application date to the date of grant of authorisation to market the product minus five years. The SPC may, however, only be valid for a maximum of five years.

Further, it is possible to apply for utility model protection. The biggest difference between a patent and a utility model is that a utility model is granted without examining whether the invention is novel. The test for novelty is slightly different for a utility model, and the protection time is shorter (10 years from application date). A utility model is granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. Utility models are often used to speed up enforcement as they are issued much more quickly than ordinary patents.

Procedure in patent enforcement and invalidity actions

In Denmark, the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen is the designated IP court for handling, among other things, disputes involving patents. This means that all cases on the merits involving patents will be heard before this court, no matter where the infringer is located. Cases will be heard by a tribunal of between three and seven judges, of which one to three judges have a legal background and two to four judges may be chosen among a pool of designated lay judges who either have a relevant commercial background or are patent agents – normally one of each.

Both actions of infringement and invalidity actions are heard by the same tribunal, and it is quite common that the purported infringer brings a claim for invalidity as an act of defence against a claim for infringement.

Decisions of the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen may be appealed either to the Supreme Court or to one of two appellate courts (covering each part of the country), depending on whether the case has fundamental importance. The Supreme Court can decide not to hear a case brought before it. The appellant then has the option of bringing the case before an appellate court instead.

i Interim proceedings

The Maritime and Commercial Court is a relevant venue for interim proceedings in patent litigation, although it is possible to bring such cases before the local city courts. If a case is brought before a local city court, either party has the option of requesting referral of the case to the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen, and the referral is mandatory for the city court.

ii Preservation of evidence

It is possible to initiate an action for preserving evidence. Such a case must be brought before the bailiff's court in the local city court; it cannot be referred to the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen. This means that if the plaintiff is seeking a combined interim injunction and a search order, he or she must involve two courts and two judges. It is possible to have two judges go to the premises and hear a combined case.

iii Administrative invalidation actions

It is possible to ask the Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate a patent according to Article 53b; however, this is rare. A court is not obliged to halt the handling of litigation involving a patent because of administrative proceedings being initiated against the patent.

If a court action is initiated involving the patent while an administrative review of the patent is pending before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Office will halt the proceedings until a final decision has been reached (Article 53b(3)) through the court system unless the administrative review has been initiated by the patent holder himself or herself.

iv Patent infringement and patent invalidity proceedings

The patent owner, or someone who has licensed the right to exploit the patent (Article 63), may bring an action in Denmark for patent infringement. It is possible to bring an action in Denmark when the purported infringer is domiciled in Denmark or has property in Denmark, as well as, in the case of EU-based companies, if the infringement takes place in Denmark. Actions regarding invalidity can only involve rights issued for the territory of Denmark.

A patent infringement action is initiated by submitting a writ to the relevant court. The writ must be accompanied by a specification of claims to be considered and a statement of facts and legal arguments. It must also be accompanied by relevant evidence to support the claims. All evidence must be presented orally in court during the trial, which results in patent litigation cases normally involving several days in court – sometimes up to two weeks in complicated cases.

The burden of proof in cases of infringement or invalidity actions lies with the claimant. In interim actions, the claimant only needs to show 'plausible' proof of infringement to obtain an injunction. If the infringement is proven beyond doubt during the action for interim measures, the court is likely to issue the injunctions without conditioning it on posting of a bond.

In cases involving a process patent for manufacturing new products, the burden of proof is reversed (Article 64A); thus, it is the infringer who has to prove that the products have not been produced by infringement. This is a direct consequence of Article 64(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The main rule regarding presentation of evidence is that the party bringing an action must present evidence to support his or her claim. It is not possible to force a counterparty to present evidence – even if it is obvious that the party is in possession of the relevant proof. There is no discovery process; however, a court may hold it against the holder of the relevant evidence if the evidence is not submitted upon request by the counterparty.

Evidence is often present in the shape of a court-appointed independent expert, having been asked to answer relevant questions about the infringement from both sides. Parties may, to a certain extent, present one-sided declarations from experts chosen by the parties themselves, but they will normally be given less weight by the judges than opinions rendered by a court-appointed expert.

The Civil Code was changed as of 1 July 2017 in this regard, and it is now possible for the parties to an action to agree to rely only on one-sided opinions prepared by experts chosen by each party. The system has not yet been used in a court action, but it is likely that the judges will put more weight on even one-sided expert opinions in future in such actions.

This requires both parties to agree to such procedures; thus, having a court-appointed expert is advisable to the extent that one party is certain that the expert will issue a declaration in his or her favour, while the new system may be advisable to the extent that a party is uncertain about the outcome of an opinion from an independent expert or in situations where it is difficult to find an independent expert with sufficient skills in the subject matter of the case.

It is very common to commence proceedings by asking the bailiff's court to conduct a search for evidence on the premises of the purported infringer, and it is quite easy to have the courts agree to conduct such a search to the extent that the plaintiff can present convincing evidence that the purported infringer is actually infringing the rights of the plaintiff, and that the evidence of the existence of the infringement and the size of the infringement may be present on the premises covered by the search order. It is also possible to ask for a search order in cases involving process patents.

The search is conducted by the judge and a court-appointed expert, but the plaintiff's lawyer may be present at the search to identify relevant evidence. Once the search has been conducted, the court or the court-appointed expert will write a report including the relevant evidence discovered on the premises, and the report will be handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then has 30 days to consider whether to use the evidence in a case on the merits.

If he or she does not introduce the evidence into a case on the merits within this deadline, the purported infringer may claim the evidence back, and the evidence is then inadmissible in court proceedings. Normally, the courts will condition the search on the posting of a small bond of between US$3,000 and US$8,000, which is meant to secure the infringer against losses, should the search order later on prove to be unfounded.

It is possible to put forward claims involving alterations of claims during a legal process, to the extent that the alterations are kept within the scope of the original claims and do not extend protection to new areas. The courts may issue a decision resulting in the rewording of the claim or simply deletion of a part of the claim. It is unlikely that the court will make those corrections without having been asked to do so by one of the parties.

It is possible for an alleged infringer to challenge the validity of the patent in connection with infringement proceedings. In this case, the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen will be the exclusive venue. A patent can be invalidated if:

  1. the patent is granted protection for a subject matter that is not patentable under the Patent Act;
  2. the invention was not new in relation to the state of art prior to the date of filing of the patent application, or did not differ essentially therefrom, or if the invention did not fulfil the requirements for industrial applicability;
  3. the description of the invention covered by the patent is not disclosed in a sufficiently clear manner to enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention;
  4. the subject matter of the patent extends beyond the contents of the application as filed; or
  5. the protection conferred by the patent has been extended after the patent authorities have notified the patent owner that the patent will be granted.

In Novartis v. Orifarm,2 a second medical use patent was invalidated because the subject matter of the patent extended beyond the contents of the application as filed. The decision was upheld on appeal,3 and the Appeal Court stated that they did not have the power to approve the patent with revised claims, as that would mean that the court would act as an administrative body because the lower court had invalidated the patent.

Patent litigation in Denmark is not too expensive compared to the surrounding countries. When considering when to sue, it is important to be aware of the fact that a request for an interim injunction will be rejected by the courts unless the plaintiff files the request in a timely fashion following the discovery of the infringement and, more importantly, following the date of having approached the infringer with a cease-and-desist letter.

There are no specific time limits specified in the law, but if the plaintiff has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the infringer or has engaged in negotiations with the infringer, it is strongly advisable to file a request for an injunction as soon as possible. The latest precedents suggest that filing a request for an injunction more than six months after having approached the infringer for the first time may be too late. Furthermore, recent case law, in EPDPP ApS v. Norgo ApS et al,4 states that knowledge of the existence in the market of a product does not in itself result in laches to the extent that extensive testing is needed to determine that the product is infringing.

In general, it is advisable to file the action as soon as enough evidence has been gathered to support the action. This normally includes relevant testing and preparation of an expert opinion.

In patent infringement cases, it is crucial to consider the strength of the patent before asking for an interim injunction. This is owing to the fact that liability for having obtained an unjustified interim injunction is very strict and may result in very large awards of damages. In AstraZeneca v. Sandoz,5 the court awarded Sandoz 100 million Danish kroner in damages for unjustified injunction because the second medical use patent held by AstraZeneca was invalidated by the court.

For that reason, the plaintiff must consider whether to ask for a quick interim injunction or for a case on the merits, which may take as long as four to six years to be decided, including appeals.

The judgment by the court includes a decision regarding costs, and it is the winner who will be awarded costs and reasonable lawyers' fees. The courts will never award full compensation for lawyers' fees. The award of costs will depend on the value of the case and normally amount to 25 to 40 per cent of the actual expenses to lawyers' fees. Costs incurred during the trial – such as fees for expert witnesses and court-appointed experts – must normally be borne by the loser, but only to the extent that the court finds that the expert witnesses' work has had direct relation to the court action.

In Sandoz vs. Gilead Sciences Denmark ApS et al,6 the Eastern High Court ordered that decisions regarding costs should be made in the light of Article 14 of EU Directive 2004/48.7 Article 14 of the Directive stipulates that the successful party, as a general rule, shall be granted reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses by the unsuccessful party.

Guided by the European Court of Justice's ruling in United Video Properties,8 the Eastern High Court found that the successful party in the case was entitled to compensation of lawyers' fees to an amount that reflected the actual rates charged in the IP field. Furthermore, it found that the successful party could be granted a substantial and appropriate part of the reasonable costs that the party had incurred.

The Court then explicitly stated that, in the light of Case No. C-57/15, fees for expert witnesses, including patent agents, should be covered by the unsuccessful party. The result of the decision was that the awarded attorneys' fees were raised considerably. The ruling may mark a shift in the Danish courts' view on the awarding of costs to the great benefit of rights holders.

A case on infringement of a patent will normally take one to two years at the Maritime and Commercial Court. If the judgment by the Court is appealed to the Supreme Court, the appeal case takes around one-and-a-half to three years.

It is possible to obtain an interim injunction against patent infringements. This requires almost the same preparation as a case on the merits and will be heard by a tribunal of three judges like a case on the merits. The procedure is the same as a case on the merits except for the fact that there is no real bar against presentation of new facts and evidence during the proceedings.

A decision on interim injunctions is often conditioned on the plaintiff posting a significant bond, the size of which is decided exclusively by the court. This is based on the likelihood of the injunction order being overturned on appeal or in a follow-up case on the merits and evidence presented by the parties in relation to the possible losses suffered by the defendant as a result of a possibly unfounded injunction having been issued. In patent cases, the bond may be significant, and in a recent case between two companies producing hearing aids, the bond was set at US$800,000. In actions involving infringement of pharmaceutical patents, the bonds are normally very high.

If the plaintiff obtains an interim injunction, this decision must be followed up by a case on the merits within two weeks after the interim decision being final. If the bond is not posted or the case on the merits is not brought in a timely fashion, the injunction will not be issued and the defendant may claim compensation for unjustified actions having been brought against them.

Claims for invalidity cannot be brought during interim proceedings, and in general there is a presumption of validity of a patent; however, in connection with deciding on the likelihood of infringement, the courts will also, to a certain extent, consider the validity of the patent in question, and it is possible to cast such uncertainty over the validity of the patent that the court may reject the infringement action.

In Ely Lilly vs. Mylan AB et al,9 the Maritime and Commercial Court affirmed the presumption of validity, despite the fact that the EPO had limited the scope of protection of the patent on the request of the patent holder. The purported infringer had claimed that in such a case, the presumption of validity should not apply.

It is possible, but extremely rare under competition law or the Marketing Act, for lawyers and their parties to become liable if they issue statements or send letters to distributors of purportedly infringing products that include false or misleading statements.

It is, furthermore, possible for a party that has been met with a claim for infringement to initiate litigation based on a claim for non-infringement; however, this is very seldom used as a result of the cost of litigation in general and the fact that a party to a legal action will never recover the full amount spent on litigation from the counterparty, even if they win.

Substantive law

i Infringement

According to Article 3 of the Patent Act, without the permission of the patent owner, no one may exploit the invention:

  1. by making, offering, putting on the market or using a product that is the subject matter of the patent by importing or possessing a product for those purposes;
  2. by using a process that is the subject matter of the patent or by offering the process for use in Denmark if the person offering the process knows or it is obvious in the circumstances that the use of the process is prohibited without the permission of the patent owner; or
  3. by offering, putting on the market or using a product obtained by a process that is the subject matter of the patent or by importing or possessing the products for those purposes.

Under the Patent Act, no one but the patent owner may exploit the invention by supplying or offering to supply anyone who is not eligible to exploit the invention with the intention of utilising it in Denmark, if the supplier's resources relate to any essential element of the invention and the supplier or person offering supply knows or it is obvious that the resources in question are suitable and intended for exploitation.

Furthermore, it is possible to face liability for infringement if one assists or incites an infringement. It is possible to face liability as multiple parties in the same case, and foreign activities can be subject to infringement in Denmark if the infringing activity has an impact on Danish territory. Otherwise, only activities performed inside the territories of Denmark can constitute an infringement.

A director of a company may be held directly liable for infringement under certain circumstances, namely when he or she has control over the company and is the person who has either initiated the infringement or performed the infringement.

The patent claim is the basis for evaluating the infringement. If an act by a third person falls within the natural understanding of the scope of the claims, it usually results in an infringement. This is the doctrine on patent claims.

However, a Danish patent is also interpreted according to the Rule in Article 69 of the EPC, which states: 'The extent of protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the term of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.'

In this regard, a protocol exists on the interpretation of Article 69. Article 1 lists the general principles; thus, Article 69 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, nor should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline. It is to be interpreted as defining a position between those extremes that combines fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties. Article 2 lists that equivalent elements should be taken into account when determining the extent of the protection of a patent.

Thus, the patent claims are the central element when looking at the scope of protection, but it is possible in each case to expand the protection to more than just the wording of the claim, allowing acts that are very equivalent to the patented invention to constitute an infringement. When checking whether a patent is infringed, the alleged infringing product is compared to the patent claim. The crucial thing is whether the central or essential parts of the invention can be found in the alleged infringing product, and whether deviations only occur in minor areas; however, if the deviation in question is obvious to a person skilled in the art, it will usually result in an infringement.

If any ambiguities exist in the patent claim, it may be taken into consideration if the patent applicant himself or herself has interpreted any ambiguities in the claim to the Patent and Trademark Office. Furthermore, precedence shows that the language in the claims that is not relevant to the core of the invention may be given lesser weight, or entirely disregarded, when assessing the scope of the invention.

Finally, the doctrine of equivalents is accepted according to precedence from the Supreme Court in the Guldager,10 according to which the use of a method that applies almost the same features to fulfil the same purpose in almost the same manner as described in the claim will also result in an infringement being stated.

ii Invalidity and other defences

The validity of a patent can be challenged by anyone who wishes to do so. The validity is challenged when a written request to re-examine a registered patent is filed with the patent authorities.

A patent is invalidated if:

  1. the patent is granted protection for subject matter that is not patentable under the Patent Act;
  2. the invention is not new in relation to the state of the art prior to the date of filing of the patent application, or does not differ essentially therefrom, or if the invention does not fulfil the requirements for industrial applicability;
  3. the description of the invention covered by the patent is not disclosed in a sufficiently clear manner to enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention;
  4. the subject matter of the patent extends beyond the contents of the application as filed; or
  5. the protection conferred by the patent has been extended after the patent authorities notified the patent owner that the patent would be granted.

In Denmark, the Patent and Trademark Office makes decisions on challenges to the validity of patents. A decision by the Patent and Trademark Office can be appealed to the Board of Appeal on Patents and Trademarks. The decisions by the Board of Appeal on Patents and Trademarks can be brought before the Maritime and Commercial Court.

It is possible for an accused infringer to argue for a prior use defence as a defence to infringement claims; however, private use by the accused infringer does not give him or her the right to continue the private use that had begun before the priority date commercially after the priority date. The prior use defence is limited to a commercial use when the exploitation does not constitute an obvious violation of the patent applicant's rights. There is no limitation to which types of patents the defence applies to. The defences may only be used if commercial use has commenced before the date of filing, and the continued use may not extend beyond the use that had been initiated before the priority date.

It is also legal to use the patented invention in experimental use. Likewise, it is legal to file for market authorisation of a generic variation of a patented drug and preparation to go on the market when the patent expires.

Enforcement of a patent can expose the patent owner to liability under competition law and marketing law. According to Article 3 of the Marketing Act, all traders shall exercise good marketing practice with reference to consumers, other traders and public interests. It is possible for a patent owner to face liability under the Marketing Act if he or she issues false or misleading statements. It is also possible that a patent owner may abuse his or her dominant position and thus face liability under competition law.

Only one example on precedent exists in Denmark. In 2005, the European Commission conducted an inspection at the premises of Lundbeck Pharma. The purpose was to identify whether Lundbeck Pharma had misappropriated a dominant position or had been involved in anticompetitive agreements in the markets for antidepressant drugs. In 2013, the European Commission found that Lundbeck Pharma had violated competition law because they used pay-for-delay agreements and imposed a fine of €93.8 million.

Final remedies for infringement

As part of a final decision on infringement, the patent holder may obtain a final injunction against the infringers' exploitation of the invention. Courts may also order the infringer to perform certain tasks that aid in terminating the illegal actions, such as withdrawal of products from the market, destruction of goods, surrender of goods to the patent holder or alterations of products to avoid infringement (Article 59).

Furthermore, the patent holder is entitled to compensation, which will be calculated based on their proven losses. Compensation requires proof of actual lost sales or market disturbance. As damages are calculated based on lost sales of the patent holder, damages may be higher than the profit obtained by the infringer.

If the patent holder cannot prove actual losses, he or she will be entitled to reasonable compensation calculated based on an evaluation of how much the infringer had to pay under normal market conditions for obtaining the right to exploit the invention. This is comparable to a royalty payment, and payment of such an amount does not allow the infringer to continue the infringement after the decision has been issued.

It is also possible to claim non-economic damages, for example, because of bad will or disturbance of the market in which the patent holder operated.

Damages can be claimed from the date the patent application was published in Denmark, but the amount of damages awarded will often be fairly low because it can be difficult to prove actual losses.

It is only possible to obtain a final injunction at the Maritime and Commercial Court, the appeal courts or the Supreme Court if the goods in question have been put on the market or sold before the final injunction is issued by the court; the patent-holder may request the withdrawal of the products from the retailers and the market, but never from the consumers.

Other types of patent proceedings

Under Danish patent law, it is possible to obtain a compulsory licence agreement; however, the provisions concerning compulsory licences are seldom used in Denmark. Once a threat to get a compulsory licence is made before the patent owner, the patent owner often enters into a licence agreement with the interested person.

A compulsory licence is obtained by filing a writ with the Maritime and Commercial Court. The requirements for obtaining a compulsory licence are that the person wishing to obtain a compulsory licence is capable of exploiting the invention in a reasonable and responsible manner that complies with the licence. Furthermore, the requirements imply that the person seeking the compulsory licence must be technically and economically able to sustain the invention's required standard on the market and capable of paying the licence fee.

Before being able to obtain a compulsory licence, the person seeking the licence must have already unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a voluntary licence.

The circumstances under which one can obtain a compulsory licence include:

  1. lack of use, namely where the patent owner does not produce the invention in question; and
  2. patent repression, namely, where a company buys patents and then does not use them for anything other than to reinforce their market position

It is possible to challenge the ownership of a patent, which is done by filing a writ of summons with the Maritime and Commercial Court, presenting evidence in support of one's claim.

Furthermore, patents may form the basis for customs seizures. The patent holder must file a petition with customs, supplying them with information about the patent. The procedure is free of official fees, but the patent holder must agree to not hold the customs authorities responsible for claims made by third parties as a result of unjustified seizures.

If a product is seized, the patent holder must either present evidence of acknowledgement of the infringement within 10 working days (an extension of another 10 days may be granted) to customs or file a writ of summons with the Maritime and Commercial Court claiming the infringement.

The infringer may ask customs to release the goods while the case is pending in court, to the extent that he or she posts a bond, the size of which is decided by customs. Furthermore, Denmark accepts the small consignment exemption, according to which small consignments may be destroyed by customs without the parties having been involved, to the extent that the infringement is proven beyond doubt.

The Danish patent system contains procedures for modifying, re-examining or revoking already registered patents. It is possible to file objections for granting a patent and request re-examination of a registered patent. This is done by filing the objection and filing the request to the Patent and Trademark Authorities. The Authorities can either partially invalidate the patent or revoke it. The Maritime and Commercial Court can decide whether a patent claim should be amended, but they are primarily reluctant on this matter.

Appeal

A judgment by the Maritime and Commercial Court on a patent case can be appealed to the Supreme Court or an appellate court. The judgment by the Supreme Court is final and cannot be appealed.

The Danish procedural system is not a front-load system, and the ability to add new evidence to a case on appeal is very liberal; however, it is not possible to add entirely new claims to the case on appeal unless the parties and the court agree to those additions.

The year in review

Approximately 11 decisions have been published within the past year, including decisions on interim injunctions, cases on the merits and award of damages. The most interesting cases are detailed below.

In Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH v. Biogen,11 Fresenius's claim for an injunction against Biogen AS and Biogen Manufacturing ApS was denied. Before the Maritime and Commercial Court in the first instance, Fresenius relied on two Danish utility models. The models were revoked by the Board of Appeal for Patents and Trademarks before the proceedings in the Appeal Court; thus, the case concerned Fresenius's European patent on which the utility models were based.

The case raised, in particular, questions on whether Biogen and Biogen Manufacturing had a right of prior use under Section 4(1) of the Patent Act, as well as questions on the validity of Fresenius's patent, including whether there was an impermissible extension of the patent within the meaning of Section 13 of the Patent Act. The Regional Court found that Fresenius could not rely on the patent owing to the inadmissible extension. The Court, therefore, affirmed that the application for an injunction had been rightly refused.

In Novartis v. Orifarm Generics,12 the case concerned damages in respect of an injunction obtained by Novartis on the basis of a right that appeared not to exist. It was undisputed that Novartis had to pay damages to Orifarm, who had claimed lost profits during the prohibition period. The Appeal Court ruled that the assessment of what profits Orifarm would have made had no injunction been sought must take into account an ex ante analysis of the most likely market developments that would have occurred had the injunction not taken place.

In Novozymes v. Danisco,13 the case concerned whether individual A was entitled to be recognised as the owner or joint owner of two patent applications that Danisco had filed. The Appeal Court ruled that the EPC and other applicable international and EU patent rules did not contain rules on who was to be regarded as the inventor or subsequent proprietor of an invention and, thus, who was entitled to file the application for a patent.

This question was, thus, left to national law and, apart from employees' rights, was not regulated on a legislative level in Denmark nor, as far as can be seen, in most other countries. In determining whether a party in those cases could achieve recognition of a right in another's patent application, a decisive factor was what legal protection the person who had made an invention in the technical field could obtain by virtue of the rules of patent law and other legislation.

Outlook

The hottest topic right now is the EU patent and the coming into force of the UPC. Denmark is part of both systems, and it is expected that this system will lead to a significant increase in the number of patents that will cover Denmark and, as a result of, an increase in litigation. Denmark has decided to establish a national chamber of the UPC, which may lead to a significant amount of litigation on Danish soil; however, as the UPC system is supranational, this may not directly affect the Danish patent litigation landscape.

It is expected that many patent holders may initially opt out of EU protection, owing to the significant risks associated with pooling all countries in one registration; thus, for the foreseeable future, there will be many litigation actions involving national Danish patents conducted in the Danish courts.

Footnotes

1 Johan E Løje is a partner at Løje IP.

2 Case No. T-9-14.

3 Case No. B-2278-16.

4 Case No. A-28-15.

5 Case No. T-2-12.

6 Case Nos. BS-16813/2018 and BS-1570/2019 of 29 August 2019.

7 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

8 Case No. C-57/15.

9 Case No. SH2019.BS-33415/2018-SHR.

10 Case No. U2009.1532H.

11 Case No. BS-31041/2019.

12 Case No. B-1533-17.

13 Case No. BS-31515/2019.

The Law Reviews content