A patent can be re-assigned to the legitimate rights holder based on a claim of entitlement under Article 118 Italian IP Code, even when the patented subject matter differs from the invention made by the legitimate rights holder, when such differences do not involve an inventive step. A summary of this case will be posted…
If the patent provides a multi-level method to be applied in more than one production entity (here: the preparation of sausage casing as endless rolls and their automatic filling at the sausage manufacturers’), the “skilled person” can be a team of several persons specialized in different disciplines, e.g. mechanical engineering, process technology and food technology,…
If replacement of a worn-out component during the lifespan of a patented combination product is expected in the relevant trade circles, this will form part of the intended and thus admissible use, unless the technical effect of the invention is reflected in such component. Otherwise replacement generally constitutes patent infringement, regardless of the component’s significance…
The amount of its profit the infringer will have to pay to the patentee as damages is calculated solely based on the profit earned by use of the intellectual property right. To determine this profit it must be assessed if, and to what extent this profit was due either to the invention’s technical features embodied…
In its recent judgment of 26 October 2012, the Spanish Supreme Court (Judge Rapporteur Mr José Ramón Ferrándiz Gabriel) has clarified an interesting point over which lower level courts offered diverging views over the last few years. The question is from which date are TRIPS’ provisions on patents applicable from the perspective of domestic law:…
In a decision issued November 1, 2012 in Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the USPTO has been misinterpreting a provision of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute in a manner that under-calculates PTA for many patents in which a Request for Continued Examination was filed….
This past week I had an interesting hearing at the EPO where an opposition was based, inter alia, on public prior use. The opposition division heard a number of witnesses on the question whether the features of a specific device had been publicly available. Prior to the hearing, the opponent had to admit that there…
EPO practice on patenting plants knows two exclusions that are defined in Art. 53(b) EPC: the exclusion of “plant varieties”, and the exclusion of “essentially biological processes for the production of plants”. The recent referral G2/12 may change this practice and may lead to the exclusion of plants depending on how they were made. The…
As any practitioner who has come in contact with the Danish legal system in connection with disputes concerning IPR will know, until now, the complexities quite often involved in such cases have often proven difficult for Danish courts, especially enforcement courts, to handle. Consequently, it has for many years been a focal point of IPR…
According to Article 65 of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”), when the European patent granted is not drafted in one of the official languages of the EPC, any contracting state may require that the patent owner file a translation of the patent with the national patent service within 3 months of the publication of the…
