The Brussels Bar Association (Dutch speaking section, hereafter BBA) recently issues the third guideline since it was created in 1994. In this Guideline the BBA instructs its members how they should safeguard the attorney-client privilege in the event of a saisie contrefaçon at the client. Since the Brussels courts have exclusive competence for patent litigation…

As the clock strikes midnight on 31 December 2019, we hope that the new Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) will not be the first thing on our minds. Nevertheless, the beginning of this new decade will mark the entry into force of these new rules, which look set to have a…

Following the 2017 revamp of the Spanish patent system, only certain courts in Barcelona, Madrid and some other industrial hubs now have jurisdiction in patent matters. However, decisions from other courts in cases brought under the old rules are still trickling in. In this case, the Zaragoza Court of Appeal delivers a judgment which contains…

The PACTE law of May 22nd [1] introduced new opposition proceedings against French patents before the French PTO. A draft amendment to the Intellectual Property Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) is currently under consideration in order to specify the modalities of proceedings (deadlines, costs, remedies, etc.). This draft is submitted for consultation to representatives…

Where an expression in a granted claim, taken literally and in isolation, would have the effect of excluding all of the disclosed embodiments from the scope of protection, but where a definition of the expression may be derived from the patent itself which would locate (at least some of) the disclosed embodiments within the ambit…

“If I listen to [judge rapporteur in the case against the Unified Patent Court Agreement] Peter Huber and the German Constitutional Court (FCC) rules at the end of March, I have the optimistic view the ruling will be a positive one.” Alexander Ramsay, chairman of the UPC Preparatory Committee, has said this in an interview…

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to treat the judge’s failure to appreciate the logical consequence of a particular finding as an error of principle which allowed an appellate court to carry out its own evaluation. Therefore the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment…