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.
Because prior art described a method that could execute an application on one computer server, it should have been obvious that the method could be applied to multiple servers. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it found that several claims of a patent describing the remote application of a computer application were not…
This decision dealt with the practically important question of whether the claim can still be waived in the proceedings on the complaint against denial of leave to appeal, i.e. after the conclusion of the appeal proceedings. This becomes particularly relevant if the patent in suit is held invalid and the opposing party does not agree…
The claimed methods of filtering, highlighting, and selecting portions of maps or other visual information for display had long been done by hand, and the claims failed to describe specific technological improvements making them patent-eligible. Two IBM software patents related to graphical display technology were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §…
On 24 August 2022, Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) handed down his decision in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC), a case on open topped washbowls made from moulded paper pulp, such as those used in hospitals, care homes…
On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…
Because the patent failed to disclose the absence of a loading dose, the no-loading-dose limitation was without adequate written description support. A divided Federal Circuit panel has reconsidered and reversed a prior decision finding that a patent owned by Novatis for administering a drug to treat relapse multiple sclerosis was not invalid for lack of…
On 15 to 17 December 2021 a three-day trial took place to determine preliminary issues in a second action brought by Neurim against Mylan in relation to patents protecting the product Circadin (“Neurim v Mylan 2021”). Meade J’s judgment (Neurim Pharmaceutical (1991) Limited and Anor v Generics (UK) Limited t/a Viatris and Anor [2022] EWHC…
In undoubtedly one of the most important decisions of the year so far, on 24 August 2021, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in FibroGen v Akebia (FibroGen Inc v Akebia Therapeutics Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1279), partially allowing FibroGen’s appeal, and so finding one of the ‘Family A’ patents, EP 823,…
The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) confirmed that for setting the value in dispute of nullity actions on standard essential patents (SEPs) the well-established general rule applies, i.e. in the absence of special circumstances the value is 125% of the value of the infringement action(s) on the same patent (Order of May 11, 2021,…
The interplay between EPO and national proceedings may take various forms. The Technical Board of Appeal revoking a European Patent during European-wide litigation is one of the more dramatic examples. The EPO’s stay of the grant of an application following an entitlement claim (an ‘entitlement torpedo’) another one. And then there is the central limitation…
