The Supreme Court concluded that it was appropriate for it to reformulate the so-called Improver (or ‘Protocol’) questions, which provide guidance as to whether a variant is immaterial where there is no literal infringement. The significant change is the introduction of hindsight into the determination of the second question: “Would it be obvious to the…
Historically, the Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office (“SPTO”) has rejected the correction of the registered term of supplementary protection certificates (“SPCs”), even in cases where such term has had to be recalculated due to the new case law emanating from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). As reported in our posts of…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application, relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that one patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and the second patent was valid. The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on cross-examination of…
In a case concerning two divisional patents derived from the same parent application relating to ‘transcatheter heart valves’ or THVs, which can be introduced via a blood vessel, rather than through open heart surgery, the Court held one patent invalid for lack of inventive step, though had it been valid it would have been infringed….
The Supreme Court held that where judgment is given in an English court that a patent (English or European) is valid and infringed, and the patent is subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended (whether in England or at the EPO), the defendant is entitled to rely on the revocation or amendment on the enquiry as to…
The Hungarian Constitutional Court has ruled that the Unified Patent Court Agreement can’t be ratified, as no appropriate mechanism for the ratification is available. According to a report by Bristows, the Hungarian Minister of Justice, acting on behalf of the government, filed a motion (No. X / 01514/2017) on 18 July 2017, requesting the Court’s opinion…
Have a great weekend, everyone 🙂
After a decade-long hiatus, so-called Arrow declarations are now firmly back in fashion after the Court of Appeal’s judgment last year in Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co, Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1. To recap, what are now known as Arrow declarations originate from the decision in Arrow Generics Ltd…
The FCJ held that an in vitro assay for testing for a specific immunological binding (namely testing for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi) using a polypeptide defined by its amino acid and a polypeptide defined by the nucleic acid sequence encoding the same, or a polypeptide encoded by segments of the nucleic acid sequence, is sufficiently…
According to the FCJ, when it comes to the question of whether a particular solution was obvious to the skilled person, it is irrelevant whether a different solution was more obvious. In the present case, it was decisive that two options were available for the skilled person, both of which were suitable for the purpose…
