Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 november 2017

Onder 2.21 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 november 2017

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 november 2017, ECLI:NL:PHR:2017:1282.

74. Looking at matters more broadly, the addressee of the Patent would, as I see it, understand that the reason why the claims were limited to the disodium salt was because that was the only pemetrexed salt on which the experiments described in the specification had been carried out. However, it does not follow that the patentee did not intend any other pemetrexed salts to infringe: the suggestion confuses the disclosure of the specification of a patent with the scope of protection afforded by its claims. Particularly given the facts set out in para 25 above [ sc. feitelijke vaststelling in eerste aanleg over de algemene vakkennis van de gemiddelde vakman in 2001/2002 over zouten, A-G], it seems to me very unlikely that the notional addressee would have concluded that the patentee could have intended to exclude any pemetrexed salts other than pemetrexed disodium, or indeed pemetrexed free acid, from the scope of protection .”

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/79ef7cf21a0854c9b4ac584196e46fd4b25c966173517a1165dc49186b86672a. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 79ef7cf21a0854c9b4ac584196e46fd4b25c966173517a1165dc49186b86672a, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 108375 tot 109438.