Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor’s request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
The interesting six-jurisdiction patent case between two of the world’s leading enzyme manufacturers, the Danish companies Danisco A/S (now part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has already been subject to earlier blogs both here and several times on EPLAW and PatLit. To recap the story briefly, Novozymes started the proceedings by applying for a preliminary…
The Board decided that the introduction of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) overruled prior case law on admission of new arguments not included in the grounds of appeal, as distinguished from new facts and evidence. The Board ruled that introduction of new arguments may violate Article 12(2) RPBA, which requires…
The objection raised by the opponent that the protected subject matter of a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application does not represent a “fresh ground for opposition”,. This bbecause in the present case i.c. the opposition division hadhas earlier raised an unrelated objection earlier, holdinstating that the patent based on the…
The board addressed the public availability of publications on the internet, holding that direct and unambiguous access of a document should be possible in order to become state of the art. A mere theoretical possibility of having access is not sufficient, nor is retrievability by a search engine per se. A safe test is that…
The board clarified the non-public status of e-mail correspondence. The opponent asserted an e-mail from a third party to the opponent as part of the state of the art. It was not in dispute that both the sender and the recipient were bound to secrecy. However, it was asserted that the e-mail should already be…
In the decision T 1621/09 of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, it was decided that late filed arguments of the appellant amended the case to such an extent that their admittance lay within the Board’s discretion, even though the new arguments were based on facts and evidence already in the proceedings. Having found so the Board, exercising its discretion, did not admit the new arguments into the proceedings.
On 20 March 2012, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris rendered its decision in the case relating to raloxifene, a molecule useful for treating or preventing osteoporosis in post-menopausal women, opposing Teva to Eli Lilly. This decision raises many questions, first concerning drug patents in particular (patentability of second medical use, patentability of the resolution of…
This contribution compares various decisions of national European courts on inventive step in the case of a monohydrate of a (known) drug, i.e. calcipotriol.
Fairly recent case law of the EPO suggests that the concept of individualized disclosure may reach further than many people think. This can have severe implications for the validity of patents and patent applications, especially in the field of chemistry and life sciences. In the following these decisions and their potential consequences are analyzed and…
