In this case the FCJ expanded on earlier case law regarding claim construction and in particular on the issue of whether a certain embodiment would fall within the scope of protection by way of equivalence if the specification in the patent described various options, but only incorporated one of those options into the claim wording….
A district court did not err in dismissing an inventor’s claim that CBS Corporation, its CBS Interactive subsidiary, and “others under the control or direction of an independent contractor” hired by CBS to produce the television show “Big Brother” infringed two patents relating to methods and systems for obtaining real time responses from a broadcast…
An EPO board held that, during opposition proceedings, copies of complaints about file specific issues sent by a party to EPO departments other than the opposition division, as well as the responses to these complaints, should be sent to the other party. The other party also needs to be notified of complaints about the work…
According to Spanish law, the decisions handed down by the Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office (“SPTO”) in relation to applications for Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPCs”) may be appealed to the “High Courts of Justice.” These are regional courts with jurisdiction to review the legality of administrative acts dealing with certain specific matters. In the context…
The Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court reported earlier this month that its work will be finished by the time of its meeting in October, and this will be its last. Due to the political reality of the Brexit vote and the legal uncertainty over its future participation in the Unitary Patent project, it is…
The final morning of the AIPPI Milano Congress contained a blockbuster, 4-hour, 3-part session on Brexit and the UPC: “Panel Session IX: Patent – The UPC – Brexit or business as usual?” The structure and panellists for the session were as follows: Part 1 – Brexit implications for the UPC Moderator: Thierry Calame, Lenz &…
In an inter partes review of a patent owned by Wi-Fi One, LLC (“Wi-Fi”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to deny Wi-Fi’s request to conduct discovery into whether Broadcom Corporation’ petition was time-barred under Section 315(b) of the Patent Act was not reviewable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has…
Panel session 2 of the second day of the Congress was a discussion session about biosimilars. Moderator Dominic Adair (Partner, Bristows (UK)) led his panellists Fritz Reiter (Regulatory CMC Team Leader, Sandoz GmbH (AT)), Prof. Mei-Hsin Wang (National Yunlin University of Science and Technology (TW)) and Bryan Zielinski (Vice-President, Assistant General Counsel, Pfizer (US)) through…
by Vanessa Rieu The first panel session of the AIPPI Milano conference – an “additional session”, crammed in early on the Sunday morning, focused on Brexit and its implications for IP. Moderator Prof Cesare Galli (IP Law Galli), and panellists Sarah Matheson (AIPPI Reporter General), Gordon Harris (Gowlings WLG (UK)), Francesca Giovanni (OSHA Liang (FR))…
Earlier this year, the Commercial Courts of Barcelona published a decision which shows that patent owners cannot obtain “Diligencias para la comprobación de hechos” (“Proceedings for the Verification of Facts”; a procedure roughly equivalent to the French “Saisie-contrafaçon“) in Spain unless they carefully prove that the application fulfils certain conditions. In particular, in its Decision…
