A recently published ruling of the Presidium of the Court for Intellectual Rights may turn the issue of cascading divisional applications upside down and endanger many patents granted on such applications. Background A divisional patent application is a separate one that is derived from an initial (parent) application. The necessity of filing such a divisional…

An earlier post on case law on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in India looked at decisions published until 2021. This very comment updates the analysis by covering more recent cases occurred in the latest two years, specifically focusing on the availability of interim injunctive relief for SEP owners and FRAND terms. In the recent proceedings…

The requirement for immediate and complete substantiation of a request for re-establishment corresponds to the principle of “Eventualmaxime/ Häufungsgrundsatz/ le principe de la concentration des moyens”, according to which the request must state all grounds for re-establishment and means of evidence without the possibility of submitting these at a later stage. Dynamic interpretation of the…

In a detailed and impeccably written decision, the Madrid Court of Appeal (Section 32) has ruled in the raloxifene case, awarding damages in the high seven figure region. This is a landmark decision which is likely to shape patent infringement claims and damage quantification, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. The decision has important implications for…

Substantial evidence supported a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding the challenged claims were obvious. A PTAB decision finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment had shown that a Bot M8’s patent directed to a video game authentication system was obvious over prior art has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the…

There was no error in an inter partes review decision finding obviousness in a communication system patent because the board properly relied on materials in the record in its claim construction and obviousness analysis. An inventor of a communication system failed to show any error in an IPR proceeding which found his invention obvious, the U.S. Court…

On 25 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Teva & Sandoz v Astellas[1] concerning the validity of Astellas’ patent to mirabegron for use in the treatment of overactive bladder (“OAB”).  At first instance, Meade J had held the patent valid and infringement by the generics’ proposed acts was not separately…

A recent decision issued by the federal district court could impact medical use patents in Brazil. In an invalidity lawsuit filed by the Brazilian affiliate of Sun Pharma against Boehringer Ingelheim, Federal Judge Carvalho, sitting at the 9th Federal District Court in Rio de Janeiro, has granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Brazilian Patent and…

Introduction On 17 July 2023, the English Court of Appeal handed down its decision in a dispute between J.C. Bamford (JCB) and Manitou about the confidentiality of information disclosed in the course of litigation between JCB and Manitou relating to the validity and infringement of certain of JCB’s patents.  At the heart of the confidentiality…

On 18 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 841, an appeal from the decision of Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court). The Court of Appeal, with Sir Christopher Floyd giving…