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
In a lawsuit involving the alleged infringement of an Exmark patent that described a lawn mower with improved flow-control baffles, a federal district court erroneously based its summary judgment finding of no invalidity solely on the fact that the patent claim at issue had survived multiple reexaminations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal…
In a long-awaited judgment, the Spanish Supreme Court has clarified the application of the TRIPS agreement to patent applications affected by the Spanish reservation to the EPC: Article 70.7 of TRIPS allowed owners of patent applications filed before 7 October 1992, but which were still pending when TRIPS came into force, to amend the patents…
(UPDATES) The European Patent Litigators Association (EPLIT) is the latest of several organisations that have published their view on the constitutional complaint against ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement in Germany. The complaint was filed last year by European patent attorney Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna. The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany requested a series…
Latvia has completed the ratification formalities of the Unified Patent Court Agreement by depositing its instrument of ratification with the secretariat of the EU Council. It is the 15th state to do so, after Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. Latvia will form a Nordic-Baltic…
In our last blog (Will the Spanish Patent Office accept the modification of an SPC’s term after the Incyte judgment?), published on 8 January 2018, we raised the question as to whether the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (“SPTO”) would accept the modification of the term of a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) after the judgment…
There has been much excitement and comment amongst the UK patent profession following the Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 (see previous comment here) on patent claim construction. However, the Court in that case did not clarify how “normal” principles of claim interpretation are now to be applied, and whether…
Co-author: Zsolt Lengyel, Danubia Patent and Law Office Just before Christmas, on 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) announced its judgment in C-492/16, Incyte, in a preliminary ruling proceeding initiated by the Budapest High Court. The decision can be considered a sequel to the CJEU’s earlier judgment C-471/15, Seattle…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection on inter partes review of 16 claims of a patent for a handheld universal tool for use with various remote tire pressure monitoring systems. The Board erred, however, in denying the patent owner’s request to substitute 16…
The constitutional complaint which was filed last year against German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, has been shrouded in secrecy. The complaint has not been published, nor the observations about the case, which the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) requested from goverment and a series of other organizations. Professor Winfried Tilmann gave his…
Readers will recall that, in its judgment of 6 October 2015 (Case C-471/14, Seattle Genetics), the CJEU concluded that the relevant date for calculating the term of a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) is not the date on which a marketing authorisation (“MA”) is granted, but the date when the addressee is notified of the decision…
