Novelty is a requirement for patentability. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public (disclosed in the prior art) before the filing date of the patent application, or, if the application claims priority of an earlier patent application, before the priority date.
Mr Justice Morgan handed down judgment on 22 July 2020 ([2020] EWHC 1968 (Pat)) in relation to two patent infringement actions brought by Lufthansa which were heard together. The first infringement action was against two defendants, Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems and Safran Seats GB Ltd. The second action was against Panasonic Avionics Corporation. It is…
Two decisions T 0184/17 and T 0603/14 were recently issued concerning admissibility of late inventive step attacks on appeal. Both cases were decided under the old Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA), but will likely still be relevant under the increased procedural stringency of the new RPBA. T 0184/17 – A Tea…
The December issue 4|2019 of the journal epi Information contains four interesting contributions to the discussion on the novelty test for sub-ranges as used by the EPO. The EPO has a special novelty test to determine whether a claimed numerical sub-range of a known broad range is novel over the known range. A sub-range must…
In a thorough decision, Barcelona Commercial Court (Section 15) clarifies important findings on novelty, inventive step and claim construction. A technical feature disclosed in the prior art will not anticipate an identical feature if the exact same functionality is not described in the prior art, even if it is common ground that the prior art’s…
One of the key questions in the assessment of inventive step within the EPO is whether or not the skilled person will adapt or modify the teaching of the closest prior art and arrive at the invention. The EPO answers this question using the so-called could-would approach developed in the early decision T2/83 of a…
In view of the upcoming Christmas season, in light of a judgment of 15 October 2019 from the Court of Appeal of Valencia published recently, a call for caution for Father Christmas is in order. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows. The company Smart Trike MNF LTD (“Smart Trike”), which owns…
Following the 2017 revamp of the Spanish patent system, only certain courts in Barcelona, Madrid and some other industrial hubs now have jurisdiction in patent matters. However, decisions from other courts in cases brought under the old rules are still trickling in. In this case, the Zaragoza Court of Appeal delivers a judgment which contains…
A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity would lack novelty over a prior art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art disclosed the claimed purity at least implicitly, for example by way of a method for preparing said compound, the method inevitably resulting in the claimed purity. Such a…
A claim to a device will be denied patentability under Art. 53(c) EPC if it can only be produced through the exercise of a surgical method step. A European patent was granted for a device for the desynchronization of activity of pathologically active brain areas. Specifically, the claim defined ‘control means, which are designed such…
The case at hand concerned an application by Pfizer for Arrow-declarations in relation to its proposed launch of its bevacizumab product (it will be branded “Zirabev”) for the treatment of various cancers in combination with other drugs. Since Pfizer was unable to show a “useful purpose”, the complaint was dismissed. The mere prospect of using…
