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.
In countries where patents and utility models (sometimes called “petty patents”) co-exist, a recurrent question is which is the level of inventiveness required for utility models as opposed to patents. According to article 8 of Spain’s 1986 Patents Act, which mirrors article 56 of the European Patent Convention, an invention protected by a patent is…
Applying a purposive construction of the claims the Court found no infringement similar to the conclusion in prior parallel proceedings between the parties in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. The issue of added matter was left to be addressed in a separate judgment. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…
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…
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…
By decision of 23 March 2012, the Supreme Court decided a case between two competitors in the field of steel products and machinery, concerning in particular the alleged infringement of two Italian patents covering a winding up mechanism for steel wire. The alleged infringer had counterclaimed invalidity based on prior disclosure, claiming in particular that…
In a recent decision (16.5.2012) the Supreme Court in Denmark has ruled on the requirement of creative step that applies to Danish utility models and serves the same purpose as inventive step in respect of patents. The utility model-in-suit had been invalidated by the Danish Patent Office and that decision was upheld by the Maritime…
The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court upheld the invalidation (in two administrative instances) of a patent claiming second medical use of a known compound for the treatment of sea lice infestation on the grounds that neither the pathology nor the patient group were novel over the closest prior art. The European sister patent had likewise…
When does the demonstration of a model at a trade fair, or a similar limited availability of a product, constitute novelty-destroying prior disclosure? Although it will depend on the patent claims, the public’s opportunity to investigate the model may be important as demonstrated in the recent case of Wagner v Earlex*. As of the implementation…
In a recent decision rendered by the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, a Danish patent invalidated administratively in both the first and second instance by the Danish Patent Office was held invalid by the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court also. The European sister patent had likewise been invalidated at the EPO Technical Board of Appeals…
