Litigation and EPO Oppositions/Appeals surrounding a controlled-release dosage form of the drug oxycodone, a morphine-like opioid analgesic developed in 1918, has kept Europe’s Pharma IP Lawyers busy for a couple of years. One of the key EP patents in this battle has been EP 722 730, and almost everything about this patent is out of…

The question of whether or not a claim in a patent deriving from a divisional application covering or embracing something which was not specifically disclosed in the parent application, is not the proper standard for determining whether there has been an inadmissible extension of subject-matter. Although broadening of individual features is not prohibited by Art….

In a recently published decision the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified some particularities of the former Swiss Patent Act regarding the amendment of patent claims during prosecution proceedings. Under the Swiss Patent Act in force until 1 July 2008, applicants who applied for the grant of a Swiss patent were allowed to extend the scope…

By Giovanni Gozzo and David Nilsson The Svea Court of Appeal partially invalidated the patent of respondent Dustcontrol, insofar as claim 1 of the patent was concerned. The Court held that it could not be deduced from claim 1 that the filter cartridge at issue in claim 1 must be a unit that neither can…

On August 30, 2011 the Enlarged Board of Appeal rendered its decision on the admissibility of a disclaimer whose subject-matter is disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed. It can be expected that the EPO will change its current restrictive practice in view of this decision, again allowing disclaimers for disclosed subject-matter under certain conditions. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not endorse the view that disclaiming disclosed subject-matter is always allowable. Hence, until further Board of Appeal decisions will bring more clarity as to the specific situations in which such disclaimers are allowable, there will remain a degree of uncertainty.

During EPO opposition proceedings, patentees have historically been able to avoid discussing clarity by combining granted claims rather than using the description as basis for amendments. The landmark cases T 227/88 and especially T 367/96 have been relied on to support this position. However, some technical boards of appeal are now starting to engage in…

On the occasion of a dispute opposing the Institut Pasteur and two Chiron companies, the French Cour de Cassation rendered on 14 December 2010 an interesting decision which confirms the existing case law on three points : the “file wrapper estoppel” theory, the contributory infringement and the infringement by equivalence.

By 24 similar decisions rendered on 14 April 2010, the Cour d’Appel of Paris held that new Article L. 614-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code, implementing the London Agreement, applies not only to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published after 1 May 2008 but also to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published before 1 May 2008. One of these decisions is here summarized.