The European Patent Office (EPO) is an organ of the European Patent Organisation, an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973. The EPO is responsible for the uniform procedure to grant European patents. Once the EPO has granted a European patent, the patent holder can validate it in every single contracting state. In the future, the EPO will also be in charge of deciding on requests for unitary effect of European patents under the Unitary Patent system.
In 2008, the English Court of Appeal in Glaxo Group v Genentech ([2008] EWCA Civ 23) gave general guidance on the Patent’s Court discretion to stay legal proceedings on the ground that there are parallel proceedings pending at the European Patent Office concerning the validity of a patent. The “nine step” guidance given by Lord…
As the readers will know, one of the possible methods used by the European Patent Office (“EPO”) to examine inventive step is the so-called “problem & solution” approach, which has three parts: i) determining the closest prior art; ii) defining the technical problem that the invention seeks to resolve; and (iii) examining whether or not,…
by Miriam Büttner On 21 January 2013 we already reported on the decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) regarding the validity of German patent no. 197 56 864, the so-called “Brüstle-patent”, which concerns the protection of neural precursor cells, a pro-cedure to cultivate these cells and the usage of these cells in therapies…
Judgments from the English Courts are nowadays usually delivered in draft form and in strictest confidence from the Judge’s clerk to the parties by way of an attachment to an email. This invariably causes an anxious lawyer to open the document and to hit “Ctrl/End” to find the conclusion of the Court, followed by a…
In a recent decision, the Danish specialty court for inter alia patents, the Maritime and Commercial Court, demonstrated its ability to render an in-depth analysis and reasoned decision in a patent case. The case was between BioPorto Diagnostics A/S (formerly AntiBodyshop A/S) a bio-tech company dealing with research, development, production and marketing of di-agnostic tests…
On 13 June 2001, the Supreme Court published a judgment dated 27 April 2011 by virtue of which the Court rejected an appeal against the judgment of 17 March 2008 from the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15), whereby this Court had confirmed the novelty of calcium atorvastatin, protected in patent EP 409,281. The claimant…
Can a claim directed to a “Composition comprising A, B and C” amended into a “Composition consisting of A, B and C”, i.e. a composition that only contains A, B and C and no further components? Or does such an amendment violate the added matter provision of Art. 123(2) EPC? That is the question, and…
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on appeal (as Bilski v. Kappos) that affirmed the judgment of the CAFC of affirming the rejection of the patent, but revised many aspects of the CAFC’s decision. In their decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the machine-or-transformation test as…
