Expanding on its 2016 Cuozzo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the “no appeal” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the agency’s application of Section 315(b)’s time bar. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Section 314(d) of the Patent Act precludes judicial review of the…

As per the EPC definition, a substance or composition that is already known to have been used in a “first medical use” may still be patentable for any second or further use, provided that said use is novel and inventive. Even though the first medical use was the subject of patent protection within the EPC…

Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou).  The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…

Because the patent failed to disclose the absence of a loading dose, the no-loading-dose limitation was without adequate written description support. A divided Federal Circuit panel has reconsidered and reversed a prior decision finding that a patent owned by Novatis for administering a drug to treat relapse multiple sclerosis was not invalid for lack of…

Barcelona Commercial Court no. 5 – arguably Spain’s most active patent court – rules in an infringement case concerning motorcycle helmets. The features of a claim cannot be narrowed down based on a preferred embodiment represented in one of the drawings. While probably not a watershed case, this precedent should be considered in future disputes…

Michael Tappin QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) It is common in English patent litigation for patentees to make an application to amend a patent post grant and in the course of litigation pursuant to section 75 of the Patents Act 1977 – for example in order to delete invalid claims…

Petitioner expert testimony in inter partes review of a surgical tool patent was more credible than patent owner’s expert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine asserted prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in do so. There was substantial evidence to support the Patent…

The judgment addresses the question of whether an employee’s right to additional remuneration from the employer for use of an invention they created depends on whether the employer obtained a patent or – at least – on whether the invention was patentable. The Polish Supreme Court concluded that the employee is entitled to additional remuneration…

1. Introduction In an important decision of February 8, 2022 the Brussels Dutch Court of Enterprises (hereafter the “Court of Enterprises”) declared null and void a patent on an “apparatus, system and method for filling containers with fluids” (hereafter the “patent in suit”). The decision is interesting for multiple reasons, but this article will only…