A federal district court erred in ruling that 34 claims of a patent on a system and method of using a graphical indicator were invalid as indefinite, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because a skilled artisan would understand, with reasonable certainty, the meaning of the term “visually negligible,” and…

Although it did not admit a broader claim 1, an EPO board of appeal allowed an auxiliary request wherein claim 1 as granted was replaced by a combination of independent claims from different first instance requests. This combination was admitted because the first instance department had had the opportunity to decide on both claims in…

Will 2017 be the year that the Unitary Patent system sees the light of day? A year ago the general expectation was for the system to fully launch this spring, with a provisional period starting late 2016. After the Brexit vote considerable delays were expected, but an announcement by the UK government late November led…

The Mobile World Congress (“MWC”) is one of the largest trade events taking place in Barcelona. Due to its importance, all relevant institutions, including regional and local governments, do their very best each year to help make the event as successful as possible. These efforts have resulted in, for example, the construction of a new…

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Federal Circuit decision upholding a jury’s award of damages to Apple Inc. based on infringement of its design patents by Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. At issue was whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” must always be the…

By decision no. 1651 of 14 October 2016 (publication reference: 24658/2016), the Italian Supreme Court put an end to the longstanding litigation between Bayer and the Italian company Industriale Chimica in relation to the production of drospirenone. This decision tackles both the issue of the patentability of chemical intermediates and that of infringement by equivalents….

The Board of Appeal found that the examining division had committed a substantial procedural violation by raising tentative patentability objections rather than completing an improperly justified incomplete search. Thus tentative examination had improperly been used as a condition for completing the search, rather than completing the search first and examining later. This forced the applicant…