The inventive step reflects a general patentability requirement in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive (not obvious in view of the prior art using the skilled person’s common general knowledge) in order to be patented / the patent to be held valid. In the United States, rather than ‘inventive step’, the expression ‘non-obviousness’ is used: is the invention an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art? The assessment of the inventive step varies from one country to another. The European Patent Office uses the so-called problem-and-solution approach to assess inventive step, an instrument also used by several national European courts.
On 9 January 2025 I reported on Parts 1 and 2 of a three-part article in EPI Information by Tamaris Bucher, a Principal Patent Attorney at Novartis Pharma AG, on the current approach to antibody patents at the EPO. In Parts 1 and 2, Bucher argued that Part G.II.6.2 of the EPO Guidelines, which starts…
The Russian Patent Office (Rospatent) has introduced new provisions relating to the assessment of patentability of “use” inventions. Background On September 27, 2024, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development issued Order No. 610, which came into effect on November 10, 2024 (hereinafter – the Order). The Order supplemented provisions on analyzing the patentability of inventions…
The festive period normally leads to a slight slow-down in work in Europe and as such, it can provide the opportunity to catch up on wider reading as well as to grab a little rest. In between the years 2024/5, I read Parts 1 and 2 of an interesting three-part article in EPI Information by…
On 30 October 2024, the District Court of the Hague handed down two merits decisions on the widely litigated apixaban patent of Bristol-Myers Squibb (see here and here – Dutch language versions). EP 1 427 415 B1 (EP 415), which lapsed in 2022, and the corresponding supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) have been subject to litigation…
In case you missed it, here are the main points from the EPO Boards of Appeal Case Law Conference 2024. As ever, this was a really interesting event with lots of high quality presentations. Above all, it is great to hear at first hand what the Board members themselves think of the hot topics at…
UPC 252/2023 NanoString v Harvard ACT_551180/2023 (UPC_CFI_252/2023) The UPC’s Munich Central Division has recently issued its decision revoking Harvard’s EP 2794928 B1 (“the Patent”) in DE, NL, and FR, with other EPO member states likely excluded from the decision on commercial grounds having lapsed during opposition proceedings in 2019. The decision is appealable. The NanoString decision…
On 8 October 2024, Mr Justice Meade handed down judgment in BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc., (together, BioNTech/Pfizer) v CureVac SE. Meade J found CureVac’s patents, relating to split poly(A) tails in mRNA, invalid for obviousness and insufficiency due to (i) lack of plausibility and (ii) because the purported technical effect does not in fact…
When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but rather determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. From the function of the individual features in the context of the patent claim as a whole, it must…
On 16 July 2024, the Munich Central Division revoked a patent for the first time in the litigation between Sanofi, Regeneron, and Amgen (UPC_CFI_1/2023). This decision is important not only because it is the first of its kind, but also because it establishes UPC’s position on the patentability of therapeutic antibody inventions. In this case,…
This morning, the Barcelona Appeal Court has announced a judgment of 18 July 2024, reversing the judgment of 15 January 2024 from Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona, which had found patent EP 1,427,415 (“EP ‘415”), protecting apixaban, to be invalid. The main highlights of the decision may be summarized as follows: The first interesting…
