Novelty is a requirement for patentability. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public (disclosed in the prior art) before the filing date of the patent application, or, if the application claims priority of an earlier patent application, before the priority date.
In a judgment handed down on 11 November 2011, the Spanish Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed by four Spanish pharmaceutical companies against a judgment from the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15), which had rejected a revocation action filed against patent EP 409,281 (Calcium salt of Atorvastatin) owned by Warner-Lambert. Applying the…
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…
Contrary to the decision of the Opposition Division issued two weeks later, the District Court of The Hague held Novozymes’ patent to be novel and inventive. It also held the patent indirectly infringed. The court held that a literal disclosure of a claim feature in the prior art does not necessarily equate to a directly…
The difference between “inventiveness” within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and “inventive step” within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between these two criteria. Thus, the inventive step pursuant to § 1(1) Utility Model Act requires the same qualitative criteria as inventiveness pursuant to § 1(1)…
To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…
After years of not having handed down judgments in patent cases, in recent months the Supreme Court has handed down several interesting judgments which will hopefully give more guidance to lower level Courts. The last judgment in this recent saga, handed down on 18 July 2011, has confirmed the judgment of 19 December 2006 from…
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) in Germany has held in its recent “Dentalgerätesatz” decision that claim 1 of EP 892 625 is novel since it claimed a new functional adaptation of otherwise known elements to serve a certain purpose. In doing so, the FCJ reversed the first-instance decision of the Federal Patent Court.
The Borgarting Court of Appeal overturned the district court decision which revoked the patents in suit for lack of inventive step. The Court held that even if oxycodone had been known and used to treat pain as an alternative to morphine, the skilled person could not have predicted that a controlled release formulation with oxycodone…
In Denmark, a patentee may opt to apply for a utility model registration in addition to a patent, provided that the conditions for the grant of both rights are fulfilled. One of the strategic advantages of applying for both rights in Denmark is that the utility model registration is not subject to as thorough a…
Imagine: Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have one single patent which you could apply for at the WPO, the World Patent Office? A World Patent, which would be valid worldwide and which could be enforced in each single country of the world with worldwide effect? Decisions of the national local chambers of the World Patent…
