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.
The “first-to-file” provisions of the United States “America Invents Act (AIA)” take effect on March 16, 2013. Because of other changes to the U.S. patent system, this date will be just as important to patent applications being filed around the world as it will be to those being filed in the United States. Here, I…
The Court of Appeal dismissed Pharmaq’s claim that Intervet’s patent claiming deposited virus strains and closely related strains sharing genotypic and phenotypic characteristics was invalid and that its vaccine did not infringe. The court held that the patent only covered the virus in isolated form and that the isolation of the virus strain from nature…
The English High Court has upheld the decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office to refuse the grant of a patent for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with zinc (El-Tawil v The Comptroller General of Patents [2012] EWHC 185 (Ch)). Although the case does not break new ground, it provides a useful review…
In a judgment handed down on 11 November 2011, the Spanish Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed by four Spanish pharmaceutical companies against a judgment from the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15), which had rejected a revocation action filed against patent EP 409,281 (Calcium salt of Atorvastatin) owned by Warner-Lambert. Applying the…
By Giovanni Gozzo and David Nilsson The Svea Court of Appeal partially invalidated the patent of respondent Dustcontrol, insofar as claim 1 of the patent was concerned. The Court held that it could not be deduced from claim 1 that the filter cartridge at issue in claim 1 must be a unit that neither can…
Contrary to the decision of the Opposition Division issued two weeks later, the District Court of The Hague held Novozymes’ patent to be novel and inventive. It also held the patent indirectly infringed. The court held that a literal disclosure of a claim feature in the prior art does not necessarily equate to a directly…
The difference between “inventiveness” within the meaning of the Austrian Patent Act and “inventive step” within the meaning of the Austrian Utility Model Act is too small to distinguish between these two criteria. Thus, the inventive step pursuant to § 1(1) Utility Model Act requires the same qualitative criteria as inventiveness pursuant to § 1(1)…
To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…
After years of not having handed down judgments in patent cases, in recent months the Supreme Court has handed down several interesting judgments which will hopefully give more guidance to lower level Courts. The last judgment in this recent saga, handed down on 18 July 2011, has confirmed the judgment of 19 December 2006 from…
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) in Germany has held in its recent “Dentalgerätesatz” decision that claim 1 of EP 892 625 is novel since it claimed a new functional adaptation of otherwise known elements to serve a certain purpose. In doing so, the FCJ reversed the first-instance decision of the Federal Patent Court.
