The Supreme Court concluded that it was appropriate for it to reformulate the so-called Improver (or ‘Protocol’) questions, which provide guidance as to whether a variant is immaterial where there is no literal infringement. The significant change is the introduction of hindsight into the determination of the second question: “Would it be obvious to the…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application, relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that one patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and the second patent was valid. The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on cross-examination of…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, which can be introduced via a blood vessel, rather than through open heart surgery, the Court held one patent invalid for lack of inventive step, though had it been valid it would have been infringed….
The Supreme Court held that where judgment is given in an English court that a patent (English or European) is valid and infringed, and the patent is subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended (whether in England or at the EPO), the defendant is entitled to rely on the revocation or amendment on the enquiry as to…
The FCJ held that an in vitro assay for testing for a specific immunological binding (namely testing for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi) using a polypeptide defined by its amino acid and a polypeptide defined by the nucleic acid sequence encoding the same, or a polypeptide encoded by segments of the nucleic acid sequence, is sufficiently…
According to the FCJ, when it comes to the question of whether a particular solution was obvious to the skilled person, it is irrelevant whether a different solution was more obvious. In the present case, it was decisive that two options were available for the skilled person, both of which were suitable for the purpose…
Following its denial of Actavis’ claim for declarations of non-infringement in respect of Eli Lilly’s European Patent, the Court of Appeal ruled on a number of procedural matters arising from that judgment. These included the form of order for costs of the trial and the appeal; a reduction in an interim payment made by Lilly…
In injunction proceedings decided in just a few hours (likely a record in Spanish patent litigation) in the context of the 2018 Mobile World Congress, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 4 granted a preliminary injunction. However, it also allowed the infringer to lift the injunction by providing a “counter-guarantee”. Thus far a very exceptional occurrence, this…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly determined that claims 1-8 of a patent for a method for drilling holes for dental implants, held by Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, were unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Further, the petitioners, Institut Straumann AG…
After post grant limitations in court were introduced in Italy by the 2010 reform of the IP Code (IPC), there is hardly a patent validity case in which the patent holder does not play the card of limitation to counter the objections raised by the other party. Even before the reform of 2010, Italian patent…
