In one of the most highly observed patent cases in Europe in 2015, Case C-170/13, Huawei vs ZTE, the Court of Justice of the European Union with judgment of 16 July 2015 provided valuable and long-awaited guidance on the antitrust/FRAND defense in cases of standard essential patents (SEPs). The decision at the same time raised…
Some musings about a song by Georg Kreisler and about the most recent plans of the President of the EPO to have the Boards of Appeal move to Vienna. The unforgettable Austrian–American Viennese-language cabarettist, satirist, composer, and author Georg Kreisler (1922-2011) once wrote a famous song having the title „Death must be a Viennese, just…
The creation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) means that there will finally be a judiciary to control the very strong executive power of the European patent system, the European Patent Office, Jens Schovsbo, Professor at the Centre for Information and Innovation Law of the University of Copenhagen, told Kluwer IP Law in an interview. According…
A board of appeal of the European Patent Office held that a conditional request for oral proceedings filed with a notice of opposition remains effective after appeal and remittal to the opposition division, even when the party fails to restate the request in response to an invitation for requests by the opposition division after the remittal….
Article 118 of the EPC (entitled “Unity of the European patent application or European patent”) states that: “[…] the text of the application or patent shall be uniform for all designated Contracting States, unless this Convention provides otherwise.” Like other Articles such as Article 2.2, 14.3, 43.1, 130.1 or 148.1, Article 118 follows the logic…
One of the tricky consequences of Article 64 of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”), which establishes that the European patent is immediately enforceable after its publication, and Article 99, which provides for “post-grant” oppositions, is that quite often the combination of these two articles fuels two trains that run in parallel where the validity of…
The board refused to apply Rule 56 EPC (filing missing drawings) to allow replacement of a poor quality drawing in a patent application by a drawing from the priority document. Although J2/12 had allowed replacement under Rule 56 in the case that it could be established that wrong drawings were filed, this applied only to…
Competence of the Dutch courts is determined solely based on facts furnished by plaintiff. Jurisdiction for patent entitlement claims is governed by the Protocol on Recognition to the EPC, not by the Brussels I Regulation. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
No, not what you might perhaps have hoped for. A lot is currently ongoing at the European Patent Office about the status, the independence, the future location and the (self-)administration of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal, but this blogger is neither sufficiently well-informed nor competent to comment on the big picture. So let’s stick to…
The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, FCJ) has issued the decision “Bildstrom” (judgment of 26 February 2015, docket no. X ZR 37/13) dealing with the patentability of a system and a method for displaying an image stream. The attacked patent EP 1474927 concerns a technical teaching for displaying an image stream, wherein at least…
