It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…

According to the law on employee inventions, the inventor is entitled to information about all income generated by the employer from third parties in exploiting the invention. This information is the basis for claims of the employees against the employer for compensation. The Court confirmed the decisions of the lower courts and held that the…

On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patents case (Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been…

In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these features make a technical contribution to the invention. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be…

On April 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most controversial and publicized biotech patent cases, the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patenting case (formally, The Association For Molecular Pathology, et al. v. USPTO et al.). While it is nearly impossible to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case from…

The High Court (Arnold J.) decided to refer further questions on the interpretation of Article 3 of the SPC Regulation to the CJEU,, particularly in relation to the Article 3(a) requirement that “the product is protected by a basic patent in force”, suggesting an interpretation which focuses on the “inventive concept” of the patent rather…

The Court of Appeal held that while structural approaches for determining obviousness (with reference to the Pozzoli test), are useful, the importance of the statutory test cannot be undermined. The ultimate question that the Court must address is whether it was obvious to the skilled but unimaginative addressee to make a product or carry out…

The German Federal Patent Court (FPC) has recently published its first decision (3 Ni 28/11 of 2 May 2012 “Ranibizumab”, GRUR 2013, 58) dealing with the interpretation of related CJEU Judgments “Medeva” (C-322/10) of 24 November 2011 and “University of Queensland” (C-630/10) of 25 November 2011. In the view of the FPC, the infringement test, which had been utilized by the German Federal Court of Justice in examining the condition of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation, can thus no longer be relied upon. Further, the FPC ruled that the requirement that an SPC can only be granted for active ingredients which are specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, applies likewise to products of single active ingredients and combinations of active ingredients.