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.
G 1/24 addresses the extent to which the description can be used to interpret the claims. As previously discussed, it looks set to be one of the most consequential EPO decisions of the decade. The hearing in G 1/24 took place on 28 March, with the opponent advocating a new “diamond standard” that the “description…
On 9 January 2025 I reported on Parts 1 and 2 of a three-part article in EPI Information by Tamaris Bucher, a Principal Patent Attorney at Novartis Pharma AG, on the current approach to antibody patents at the EPO. In Parts 1 and 2, Bucher argued that Part G.II.6.2 of the EPO Guidelines, which starts…
The Swedish Patent and Market Court (“PMC”) recently issued a judgment on an important aspect of SPC law, namely the correct interpretation of the term ‘product’ under Article 1(b) of the SPC Regulation (see PMC 16666-23, 21 January 2025, English translation). This action was commenced by STADA, who challenged the validity of an SPC for…
The festive period normally leads to a slight slow-down in work in Europe and as such, it can provide the opportunity to catch up on wider reading as well as to grab a little rest. In between the years 2024/5, I read Parts 1 and 2 of an interesting three-part article in EPI Information by…
On 30 October 2024, the District Court of the Hague handed down two merits decisions on the widely litigated apixaban patent of Bristol-Myers Squibb (see here and here – Dutch language versions). EP 1 427 415 B1 (EP 415), which lapsed in 2022, and the corresponding supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) have been subject to litigation…
On 8 October 2024, Mr Justice Meade handed down judgment in BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc., (together, BioNTech/Pfizer) v CureVac SE. Meade J found CureVac’s patents, relating to split poly(A) tails in mRNA, invalid for obviousness and insufficiency due to (i) lack of plausibility and (ii) because the purported technical effect does not in fact…
On 27 August 2024, the Munich Local Division awarded a preliminary injunction (‘PI’) in an action brought by Hand Held Products against Scandit for infringement of EP3866051 (“Mobile computer configured to read multiple decodable indicia”) in relation to Scandit’s ‘Data Capture SDK’ software (Order UPC_CFI_74/2024). The Court held that Scandit’s software development kit (SDK) more…
This is part II of an open letter directed to the President of the EPO in his capacity to give directions on the composition of Opposition Divisions. Article 19 EPC explicitly permits the Primary Examiner to be member of an Opposition Division. Many applicants and representatives, however, have a feeling of bias in favour of…
In a long awaited, but timely decision the Düsseldorf local division has the honour to be the first to decide an infringement case before the UPC. Indeed, the court lived up to its promise to deliver a decision in about 1 year. The decision itself, where the patent was found invalid, but an auxiliary request…
This morning, the Barcelona Appeal Court has announced a judgment of 18 July 2024, reversing the judgment of 15 January 2024 from Commercial Court number 4 of Barcelona, which had found patent EP 1,427,415 (“EP ‘415”), protecting apixaban, to be invalid. The main highlights of the decision may be summarized as follows: The first interesting…
