‘The unitary patent (UP) package is a strange animal.’ Margot Fröhlinger has no problem admitting that. As Principal Director Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs of the EPO she is closely involved in implementing the new patent system, which is expected to become operational in 2016. It is a complicated political compromise, based on both EPC…
‘It’s one big mess.’ At times Emil Pot, co-founder and general counsel of biopharmaceutical company ActoGenix, had difficulty containing his frustration at the Congress on the EU patent package, which took place at 17 October 2014 in Brussels. The issue: the discussion on determining the renewal fees of the future unitary patent (UP), and –…
The training of judges for the UPC will commence in the first quarter of 2015. Willem Hoyng, member of the Expert Panel of the UPC Preparatory Committee, informed Kluwer IP Law that a group of 26 ET judges (Eligible with Training) has been selected for the initial training course. However, this does not mean that they will also be…
The machine translations provided by Google and the European Patent Organization have to improve considerably before the Czech Republic will ratify the UPC agreement. Josef Kratochvil, president of the Czech IPO Office, told Kluwer UPC News reporter that the language issue is the most serious problem the Czechs have with the patent package. It is…
Will the upcoming Unified Patent Court be a success? Is opting-out most patents the best option when the new system starts functioning? How will IP litigators and practitioners see their work change? What are the economic consequences for participating countries? Are SME’s benefitting from the Unitary Patent as much as multinationals? Won’t it be too…
The recent decision T 1843/09 clarifies that the exception to the prohibition of reformatio in peius set out in G 1/99 in order to overcome an objection under Article 123(2) EPC is not the only exception. According to the Technical Board of Appeal, exceptions to this principle are a matter of equity in order to protect a non-appealing Proprietor against procedural discrimination in circumstances where the prohibition of reformatio in peius would impair the legitimate defence of its patent.
The board held that a document of speculative nature could not objectively be considered as a realistic starting point or the most promising springboard towards the claimed invention: the document was no more than a speculative review of what might be potentially feasible in the future and no concrete realization of the claimed type of…
