Schjødt

Extensive litigation experience, including electronic litigation systems. Some reference cases:

The DVD-case. Jon Johansen was 15 when he was indicted by the Norwegian Økokrim for having broken the content scrambling system on DVD-discs. Johansen won both in the City Court and in the Court of Appeals, and was cleared on all counts. The case is probably the largest case in Norway in terms of international media coverage: TIME Magazine, CNN 1 2 3 etc, BBC 1 2, NY Times 1 2.

The Balder-case. One of six lawyers from Schjødt litigating the largest case in Northern-European history. Schjødt represented ExxonMobile, who won the case in a ruling of roughly 1200 pages. The trial hearings took around 20 months to complete and required severe discipline, planning and trial skills from the lawyers involved.

The Patent invalidity vs infringement case. An international offshore well-service company was sued for infringing on a patent related to flow control. Our client filed a countersuit for invalidity, and won in the court of first instance. The patent was found invalid, and our client fully acquitted. The case was then settled before hearings before the Court of Appeals.

The Multi-activity patent case. The largest drilling company in the world, Transocean, filed suits against our client in various jurisdictions across the world. The patent case here in Norway is the largest patent case in this country. The case was won with both Transoceans multi-activity patents being found invalid by the city court, then the Court of Appeals, with the final appeal from Transocean rejected by the Norwegian Supreme Court. The case also involved patent disputes in other jurisdictions, and pleadings before the EPO.  

Esomeprazol line extension case. Astra Zeneca patented the compound Omeprazol, which is an acid inhibitor. This product was for an extended period the most grossing pharma product on a worldwide basis. The successor, Esomeprazol, is a line extension of this same product, and our client wanted to challenge this patent in order to open the market for generic products. The first of several multi-jurisdiction cases started with our case here in Norway. The court of first instance found the two patents in question valid and partly invalid. The case is still ongoing.

The Sponsor case. In this case were Schjødt represented the Football Club Manglerud Star Toppfotball against the Norwegian State, an injunction was won on important freedom of speech and Marketing Law issues. The case was later settled.

The Ryanair case. The airline challenged a ruling from the Norwegian Market Council, and won the lawsuit against the Norwegian State in the Court of Appeals.

The Lible Interpretation-case. A newspaper referred a court ruling in anonymised form. A person who was mentioned in the ruling made a claim of vindication and compensation towards the newspaper due to what he percieved as libellous statements by the newspaper. The case went before the Norwegian Supreme Court, where the newspaper was freed on all counts.

The Database-case. Finn Eiendom is the market leader within Internet columns and the Ebay of Norway. A realtor chain launched a competing service which made use of FINNs content without prior consent. The service was stopped with a preliminary injunction, and when the injunction was challenged, FINN won before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (who rejected the appeal). The case was later settle amicably before going to the Court of Appeals.  

The Professional Liability-case. A lawyer was interviewed in relation to a case where he was assisting his client. The article with the interview resulted in a lible suit towards the lawyer. The case raised principle questions regarding freedom of speech and a lawyer’s privilege and obligation when representing a client.

The Suspect-case. A newspaper covered the Baneheia-case (one of the most notorious criminal case in Norway), and reported on the police investigators interest for one particular person. The case raised questions concerning newspaper-coverage of criminal investigations in general, as well as the standards of ethics required of such journalism. Most noteworthy is the Supreme Courts decision, where it is made clear that there is no discrepancy between Norway's practice concerning the European Convenvtion of Human Rights, and that freedom of speech has not been narrowed in modern case-law.