A request for re-establishment should be filed within two months of the date of removal of non-compliance. This date may be the date on which the applicant became aware of the missed due date, even if the professional representative did receive the EPO communications mentioning the failure to comply with the deadline. Case date: 18 June…
One of the features that render the European Union’s Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) unique in comparison to similar legal instruments in other jurisdictions, including the United States and Japan, is that there is no legal provision expressly calling for any specific relationship or agreement between the patent proprietor (and SPC applicant) on the one hand,…
In the field of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) in the European Union, the majority of all CJEU referrals resolved to date have dealt with the interpretation of the – presumably simple – condition that an SPC can only be granted for an active ingredient (or a combination of active ingredients) that is “protected” by the…
The PTAB improperly found that the patent is unpatentable in view of the prior art. Concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board improperly construed certain claims in a patent for memory system circuits owned by Innovative Memory Systems, Inc. in an inter partes review filed by Micron Technology, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals…
Cases in which FRAND licences are discussed, and where if no licence is taken an injunction is requested, more closely resemble unpaid debt claims then IP-related cases and are thus less suitable for preliminary proceedings. Further, the fact that the case was complex, not only in relation to the patented subject-matter but also because of…
Board’s obviousness finding was predicated on erroneous finding that claim term “mechanical control assembly” was not a means-plus-function term. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding that the term “mechanical control assembly” used in two independent claims of a patent directed to a steering and driving system for zero turn radius vehicles had…
The Court rejected a claim that a new action brought by the claimant asserting additional patents from its portfolio was an abuse of process, finding that a radical change in position by the defendant had driven the need for the claimant to bring an action on other patents. Case date: 17 April 2019 Case number:…
A claim to a device will be denied patentability under Art. 53(c) EPC if it can only be produced through the exercise of a surgical method step. A European patent was granted for a device for the desynchronization of activity of pathologically active brain areas. Specifically, the claim defined ‘control means, which are designed such…
The Court of Appeal allowed ZyXEL’s appeal, finding that in light of its waiver of its RAND licence rights, declaratory relief to determine the scope and terms of the licence which TQD was bound to offer to the two ZyXEL parties would no longer serve a useful purpose. Case date: 18 July 2019 Case number:…
Proceedings for the preservation of evidence and the subsequent infringement proceedings are two separate proceedings and only the latter is relevant for starting an intervention in opposition proceedings according to Art. 105 EPC. The admissibility of an intervention should be established at the moment of intervention and this cannot be changed by later events. Case…
