Since 01.04.2010 an applicant of a European patent application must respond to the search opinion drawn up by the search division as if it was a communication of the examining division (see new Rule 70a EPC). The applicant is requested to correct any deficiencies of the patent application noted in the search opinion. However, in…
The divergences of solutions which can exist between the various national courts with respect to the various national designations of the same European patent could become a major obstacle to the circulation of the Euro banknotes throughout all Europe. The national designation of European patent EP 0 455 750, the holder of which – Document Security System – claims that it is infringed by the Euro banknotes, is held valid in Germany, Holland and Spain but invalid in Belgium, the UK, Austria and France. The invalidity is affirmed in France by the 17 March 2010 decision of the Cour d’Appel of Paris.
The “nail-Byting” in the Computer IP community came to an end on 12 May 2010 when the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal finally handed down its opinion in the “Programs for Computers” case. The opinion is about 4 questions which were referred to the EBA by the President (Ms. Brimelow) under Article 112(1)(b). The decision…
The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were answered as follows: 1. A claimed imaging method, in which, when carried out, maintaining the life and health of the subject is important and which comprises or encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires professional medical expertise to…
In the case at hand the Board held that the European Patent Convention does not contain any specific provision for refusing a European patent application for unallowable double patenting. According to the Board neither Article 125 EPC nor Article 60 EPC could serve as a legal basis for such refusal thereby explicitly disagreeing with the…
A second medical use claim can be based on a novel dosage regimen. In decision T317/95 a Board of Appeal decided that this type of claim was not allowable. It regarded the activity of administrating a medicine as a therapeutic treatment and, hence, an activity in a field excluded from patentability. Since the patent right…
One of the most disputed topics within the patent community is whether or not the patent prosecution history should be taken into account when interpreting the scope of protection of the claims. Whereas U.S. Courts have traditionally accepted the so-called “file-wrapper estoppel” or “patent prosecution estoppel” defence, the answer on this side of the Atlantic…
The English Court of Appeal dismissed Novartis’ appeal against the finding of the Patents Court that Novartis’ patent for a sustained release formulation of fluvastatin was invalid for obviousness. The case was unusual because, at first instance, Warren J. had held the patent to be inventive on a conventional analysis but then went on to find it obvious using an acontextual approach. The Court of Appeal discussed the correct approach to the question of obviousness in English law, by reference to both the problem and solution approach developed by the European Patent Office and the established four-step approach developed by the English Courts in Windsurfing v Tabur Marine and Pozzoli v BDMO .
According to the Advocate General Article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive does not limit the scope of protection of patents for biotechnology inventions. Nonetheless protection for DNA sequences as such is excluded.
In its decision rendered on 19 March 2008 the District Court of The Hague referred questions to the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC 0f the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (“Biotechnology Directive”). In particular the Dutch court wished to know whether article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive should be interpreted as extending the rights conferred by a patent covering a biotechnological invention, or, on the contrary, whether it should be interpreted to limit the proprietor’s right to prevent the exploitation of material containing the patented product (DNA sequence), on the condition that such product still performs its function. The Advocate General in his opinion comes to the conclusion that it is irrefutable that article 9 of the Biotechnology Directive is a rule for the extension of patent protection. However, in his opinion the system put in place by the Biotechnology Directive excludes protection for DNA sequences as such. Such protection is limited “to the situations in which the genetic information is currently performing the functions described in the patent.” But how does this relate to the obligations under the European Patent Convention (EPC)?
This case relates to the opposition against Amazon’s famous ‘one-click’ patent. The Board ruled that what is required for obtaining patent protection for a software-implemented business method is that the software should contribute to a technical effect which goes beyond the mere implementation of the business method itself. The Board held that although computer-implemented business…
