One of the possible methods to examine incentive activity is what is known as the “problem and solution approach” usually applied by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). Spanish Courts like this methodology, as it allows the Judge to subject the opinions expressed by the experts to an objective test. For example, in a judgment of…
by Claire Phipps-Jones The Patents Court has recently determined two questions relating to groundless threats: first, can a threat made on the basis of a patent application be justified once the patent has granted, and second, if so, when should a trial relating to such a threat be heard? The decision addressing both issues was…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in affirming a patent examiner’s rejection of three claims of an IPCom patent on a system for allowing access rights to cell phone channels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because all three claims were anticipated by the GSM 04.60 Specifications,…
An EPO board held that observations filed by third parties during inter partes appeal must be disregarded by the board, unless they concern amendments during opposition or appeal, in which case the board has discretion whether or not to consider the observations in the examination of the amendments. Also when a party to the appeal…
The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court recently rendered judgement (SH2016.T-5-14) in a matter between Ametek Denmark A/S and the intellectual property consultancy Zacco Denmark A/S. As an external patent agent, Zacco had assisted Ametek in filing several patent applications regarding Ametek’s invention of a temperature calibration system. However, in an international patent application and in…
A federal trial court erroneously concluded that patent defendant Suunto Oy lacked minimum contacts with the State of Delaware to support the assertion of specific personal jurisdiction in a patent infringement suit filed by Polar Electro Oy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The judgment of the district court was…
Contrary to established case law and practice, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna stayed preliminary injunction proceedings in a patent infringement matter and conducted an oral hearing. The proceedings were stayed until the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal’s decision, confirming the validity of the patent in suit, was available in writing; the oral hearing was…
As readers know well, over the last few years courts around Europe have handed down several ground-breaking decisions on the scope of “second medical use” claims and, in particular, the activities required of third parties to guarantee the fair protection of such claims. Most of these decisions have revolved around the Lyrica® (pregabalin) patent, which…
On June 17, 2016, the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court rendered judgement in a patent case between AstraZeneca and Teva and Accord regarding the validity of the DK part of EP 0 907 364. The patent-in-suit concerned a new formulation of the already known pharmaceutical substance quetiapine in a sustained release comprising the active substance…
The Board of Appeal held that “Biogen insufficiency”, the situation in which the full extent of the monopoly claimed exceeds the technical contribution to the art, is not a distinct ground for invalidity from “classical insufficiency”. Further, the fact that a skilled person is not able to carry out the invention without using the disclosed…
