• Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    Check the court's jurisdiction before bringing an action

    06/12/2010

    Picking the correct court to handle a case first time can save time and money. Norwegian company Marin Alpin AS sued Swiss company Würth International AG in the district court where it had its main offices for alleged violation of the unfair competition rules set out in the Marketing Control Act. Marin claimed that Würth was liable for damages after copying a sports jacket. The disputed jackets had been distributed internally in the Würth group in some European countries, but not in Norway. Marin contended that Würth was liable for product imitation under Sections 8(a) and 1 of the Marketing Control Act. Since the jackets had not been distributed in Norway, the issue of jurisdiction came into play. The district court found that it had jurisdiction and ruled in favour of Marin, which was awarded damages of Nkr750,000 and costs of Nkr281,000. Würth appealed.

  • Jarle Roar Sæbø Partner

    Centrebet PTY Ltd sued in Norway - Supreme Court Approves

    20/10/2010

    Mr Bjarte Baasland used various internet based betting services for a number of years, and in the end he had accumulated a total loss of approximately 7,5 million Euros. Centrebet was one of two services he used the most, and in 2009 he initiated legal proceedings against the Australian company. Mr Baasland claims that he was a gaming addict and that Centrebet should have stopped his gaming and should not have enticed him to further gaming. The legal proceedings were initiated in Norway, and Centrebet asked the court for a dismissal, claiming that Norway was not an applicable legal venue. Both the City Court and the Appeal Court accepted Centrebet's argument and wanted to dismiss the case. However, the Supreme Court turned it all around, and Centrebet will now be part of legal proceedings before Norwegian courts.

  • Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    Patent law harmonisation continues

    08/04/2010

    As of 18th December 2009, Norway amended its Patents Act to introduce a Bolar-type exemption from the exclusive right of the patent owner.

  • Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    Electronic ID service provider off the hook in patent infringement case

    06/04/2010

    On 10th February 2010 the Oslo District Court returned its judgment in a high-profile patent infringement and nullity case. Danish company Cryptomathic had brought a patent infringement action against Bankenes Betalingssentral (BBS) - one of the largest suppliers of electronic identification services in the Nordic region - potentially threatening to stop a substantial part of BBS’s services. BBS responded by, among other things, bringing a nullity action. The two cases were heard and decided in conjunction.

  • Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    File-sharing ruling upheld on appeal

    25/03/2010

    In November 2009 the Asker and Baerum District Court rendered its long-awaited ruling in the Telenor filesharing case. On 9th February 2010 the Borgarting Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, however it gave other reasons for reaching the same conclusion as the lower court.

  • Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    Court of Appeal applies doctrine of equivalents

    11/03/2010

    Less than two weeks after the Supreme Court issued a key decision in Eisai v Krka, the Borgarting Court of Appeal has referred to that decision and applied the test defined therein to an appeal concerning Krka's alleged infringement of Merck Co, Inc's licensed patent for losartan.

  • Amund Brede Svendsen Partner

    Court of Appeal reverses revocation of machine patent

    09/03/2010

    The Borgarting Court of Appeal has revoked the district court's decision in HMR Hydeq AS v Storvik AS. Its decision was based on whether the patented machine was known in the industry in which it was used.

1 2 > »

Fagområde

Bransje