Validity

In most systems, a patent is valid for 20 years from the filing date of the patent application. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity but no patent is safe from being challenged and declared (partially) invalid by national courts or, in the case of European patents, revoked by the European Patent Office. Often, a claim of invalidity of a patent is a reaction to an action of the patentee, in particular an infringement action.

(Indirect) infringement, Antibodies, Biologics, Inventive step, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Germany, Inventive step, Novelty, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

and Bernd Kröger. A combination of two pharmaceutical ingredients, i.e. leflunomide and teriflunomide is to be considered obvious if the person skilled in the art uses an obvious process to obtain leflunomide that automatically results in – even with a certain delay – both components due to a chemical reaction. Click here for the full text…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Extent of Protection, Inventive step, Procedure, Sweden, Validity

(Bird & Bird)/

In a combined patent infringement and nullity case, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Roche Diagnostics’ European patent as far as Sweden was concerned, but held, other than the District Court, that the alleged infringer did not infringe the patent at issue. The Court of Appeal further held that a patent can…

Enforcement, Germany, Injunction, Inventive step, Novelty, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

In its “Leflunomid” decision of 24 July 2012 (Case X ZR 126/09), the FCJ declared a patent claim to be invalid which covered a combination of leflunomide and teriflunomide, on the grounds that it had long been known in the prior art (for 100 years) that some leflunomide spontaneously and unavoidably converts teriflunomide over time…

Added matter, Case Law, Inventive step, Mechanical Engineering, United Kingdom, Validity

(Bristows)/

The Court held that a decision by the EPO relating to the UK designation was not capable of challenge. In any event, the procedure chosen by the claimant to challenge the decision (an application to correct the UKIPO register based on Rule 50 of the Patents Rules 2007) was wrong, because it required the consent…

Germany, Procedure, Validity

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/ /1 Comment

by Henrik Timmann There is a saying in Germany: Two lawyers add up to three different opinions. Well, for a long time the Federal Patent Court seemed to have been inspired by this saying when deciding on the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees in nullity actions. Background Most of you will know about the bifurcated system…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Germany, Novelty, Priority right, Revocation, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The Supreme Court held that claiming priority of an earlier application requires a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority document of all features of the technical teaching as defined in the claims. If the claimed invention is characterized by a particular property of one of its components that has not (clearly) been disclosed in…

Case Law, Chemical Engineering, Germany, Validity

(Krieger Mes Graf & v. der Groeben)/

The Federal Court of Justice held that the meaning of a patent claim as a whole and the contribution of the single features to the result of the invention must be assessed in nullity proceedings. It is not permitted to attribute a certain meaning to the claim to only avoid an issue of undue broadening….

Biologics, Scope of protection, SPC, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The German Federal Patent Court (FPC) has recently published its first decision (3 Ni 28/11 of 2 May 2012 “Ranibizumab”, GRUR 2013, 58) dealing with the interpretation of related CJEU Judgments “Medeva” (C-322/10) of 24 November 2011 and “University of Queensland” (C-630/10) of 25 November 2011. In the view of the FPC, the infringement test, which had been utilized by the German Federal Court of Justice in examining the condition of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation, can thus no longer be relied upon. Further, the FPC ruled that the requirement that an SPC can only be granted for active ingredients which are specified or identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, applies likewise to products of single active ingredients and combinations of active ingredients.