In April Enrico Bonadio, Luke McDonagh and Francesco Chierichetti reported in this blog four decisions in Italian SEP-related litigations. Since then, thanks to further research and inputs from friends and colleagues, we have come across some other unpublished decisions, which we want to highlight here. Court of Turin, 4 April 2014 – HTC Europe…
[KEYPOINT]: A historic Federal Court decision says an artificial intelligence system is capable of being named as an “inventor” under the Patents Act 1990, with potentially significant ramifications for technological innovation and the patent system in Australia. In the first judicial determination in the world of its type, the Australian Federal Court has held that…
As many Kluwer readers will know, the last 18 months have witnessed a changing of the guard within the English Patents Court with long-standing first instance judges Arnold and Birss JJ being promoted to the Court of Appeal and their shoes in the Patents Court being filled by the highly respected patent practitioners, Meade and…
The Hatch-Waxman Act allows the FDA to permit a generic version of a branded product, which is partially patent protected, to come to market if the generic manufacturer “carves out” the patent-protected indication from its label. The scope of protection from a finding of induced infringement afforded to generic manufacturers by this “skinny label” provision…
In Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., ___ F.4th ___, Nos. 2020-1715, -1716 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the University of Michigan’s technology transfer bylaws did not constitute an automatic assignment of a professor’s patent rights. This decision has important implications for the drafting…
In an Iberian validity dispute pitching a Spanish generics manufacturer against Portugal’s national pharmaceutical champion Bial Portela, the busy and influential Barcelona Commercial Court No. 5 rules on the “problem-solution approach”. In line with other recent decisions, the Court confirms i) that it may depart from the claimant’s choice of closest prior art and ii)…
Although the grounds of the decision under R. 111(2) EPC do not have to deal in detail with all the arguments of the parties, at least the key points of discussion must be addressed. The grounds must respond to the relevant facts, evidence and arguments and contain the logical chain that led to the formation…
A change in the composition of the Examining Division is legally allowed. This does not jeopardize the right to be heard and to a fair trial. The ‘equality of arms’ is not hampered by the introduction in a late stage of examination and in particular during the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, of new…
Introduction The implementation of 4G mobile communication technology in the UK has become very expensive for Apple in light of the High Court of England and Wales’ decision last month in Optis v. Apple. The court held that Optis’s standard-essential patents (‘SEPs’) were infringed by Apple. The court added that it was willing to decide…
According to established case law, it is sufficient for the realization of a feature containing an indication of purpose if the device protected is suitable for use for the purpose mentioned due to its structural design. In the case of a feature that is claimed in a generalized form, the patent specification does not have…
