Read all the (latest) blogs from:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, EPC, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America
Since 29.04.2023, new Russian Patent Requirements (the Requirements) have been in force. These include several amendments compared to the previous version of the requirements, including an amended provision on the rules for unity of invention. Clause 2 of the previous requirements stipulated that the requirement of unity of invention in relation to a claimed group…
A recent decision issued by the federal district court could impact medical use patents in Brazil. In an invalidity lawsuit filed by the Brazilian affiliate of Sun Pharma against Boehringer Ingelheim, Federal Judge Carvalho, sitting at the 9th Federal District Court in Rio de Janeiro, has granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Brazilian Patent and…
Introduction On 17 July 2023, the English Court of Appeal handed down its decision in a dispute between J.C. Bamford (JCB) and Manitou about the confidentiality of information disclosed in the course of litigation between JCB and Manitou relating to the validity and infringement of certain of JCB’s patents. At the heart of the confidentiality…
My British colleague has already commented brilliantly on the UK ruling in this case from the point of view of plausibility (see here). For my part, I’d like to comment the French ruling in the same case, which takes the opposite view to the UK decision. We shall see that the French position is particularly…
On 18 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 841, an appeal from the decision of Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court). The Court of Appeal, with Sir Christopher Floyd giving…
In decision T 438/19 Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.03 has ex officio (!) referred three questions of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (now handled as G 1/23) in order to resolve a perceived divergence in the case law. These questions concern the question whether and in how far a (commercial) product and technical…
To ensure you don’t miss out on interesting IP law developments reported on our other IP blogs, we will, on a regular basis, provide you with an overview of the most-read posts from each of our IP law blogs. Here are the most popular posts over the past few months. Top 3 Kluwer Copyright Blog…
“One person’s happiness is another person’s misfortune” (i.e., “le bonheur des uns fait le malheur des autres”)… This French proverb could easily be applied to the subject I’m dealing with today: conflicts between UPCA and national laws, which will undoubtedly be a joy for legal Counsels and a misfortune of the system’s users, mostly because…
The combination of two well-known high blood pressure medicines did not result in unexpected patient benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying as obvious over prior art an application to patent a method of co-administering two well-known antihypertensive agents to…
The Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has unanimously decided to establish a section of the UPC’s Central Division in Milan, as a replacement for London. As the UPC reported: ‘Based on article 87(2) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement the Committee took a decision to amend the Agreement with a view to…
