Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.—which had successfully petitioned for IPR—withdrew from the case after Huawei filed its appeal, but the U.S. government intervened to defend the PTAB’s decision. Substantial evidence supported the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings that a relevant artisan would have found obvious the claims of a patent directed to enabling a mobile…

Nippon Shokubai filed an opposition against the grant of BASF’s patent. In relation to the payment they filed EPO Form 2300E, which – erroneously – did not indicate any payment method in box X ‘Payment’, which then indicated ‘not specified’. In the accompanying letter the professional representative had indicated that the opposition fee could be…

Biolitec owns a European patent on an endoluminal laser ablation device which comprises a flexible wave guide (optical fiber) which at the distal end includes a radiation emitting surface to emit radiation laterally with respect to the axis of the fiber. Tobrix commercializes two types of optical fiber for treatment of varicose veins that allegedly…

The case concerns the transfer of a priority right from an employee to his/her employer and the relevant time zone for determining the priority: 1. The validity of the transfer of rights to an invention by the employer by claiming it as a service invention is governed by the law applicable to the employment contract….

This is a follow-up to Jan-Diederik Lindemans’ post of 18 December 2019 discussing the guidelines on legal privilege during saisie-contrefaçon adopted by the Brussels Bar Association (‘BBA’) on 21 October 2019. In a judgment of 26 March 2020, the Ghent Business Court confirmed the BBA’s position on this issue. In the 26 March 2020 judgment,…

With the rendering of the judgment in Royalty Pharma (C-650/17) by the Court of Justice of the European Union today on 30 April 2020, a series of referrals relating to the interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation, which requires that the product of an SPC must be “protected” by the basic patent, finally…

In its 30 January ruling in Generics (UK) and others v CMA, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in effect upheld the existing approach of the European Commission and EU General Court in relation to the assessment of so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements.  The CJEU confirmed that settlements in which a generics manufacturer is paid…

The Federal Court of Justice made the following findings in relation to the material and personal scope of the right to prior use: 1. Where a pre-used embodiment does not implement all features of the patent claim, a modification of the pre-used embodiment which implements all the features is not covered by the right of…

In the present interlocutory case, VUB and Ablynx requested inspection of evidence that was seized from QVQ on the basis of suspicion of patent infringement. The provisions judge came to the conclusion that the interests of the claimants did not provide sufficient reason to – preliminarily – grant the inspection. Case date: 21 January 2020 Case…