While the subject of the appropriate court fees to pay when issuing proceedings is not normally an exciting one to write about (indeed some readers of this post will say that this remains the case) a recent application concerning the appropriate fees to pay in a trade mark action (Lifestyles Equities CV v Sportsdirect.com Retail…
One of the possible methods to examine incentive activity is what is known as the “problem and solution approach” usually applied by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). Spanish Courts like this methodology, as it allows the Judge to subject the opinions expressed by the experts to an objective test. For example, in a judgment of…
When it comes to infringement of patents, the doctrine of equivalence has gained some more attention in the last few years in German courts and indeed also in some of my earlier posts on this blog (see here). In this context, two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in 2011 have set up…
As well as bringing you a fun copyright quiz to keep you entertained over the rest of the summer, we’ve also prepared an overview of the top 3 most-read posts from each of our IP law blogs. Unsurprisingly, Brexit was the hot topic on all three blogs, but we also have a very interesting interview…
On 22 July 2016, IP Australia approved a patent specification involving computer programming in poker machines in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49. IP Australia’s decision comes on the heels of the High Court of Australia’s approval of the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015]…
by Claire Phipps-Jones The Patents Court has recently determined two questions relating to groundless threats: first, can a threat made on the basis of a patent application be justified once the patent has granted, and second, if so, when should a trial relating to such a threat be heard? The decision addressing both issues was…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in affirming a patent examiner’s rejection of three claims of an IPCom patent on a system for allowing access rights to cell phone channels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because all three claims were anticipated by the GSM 04.60 Specifications,…
An EPO board held that observations filed by third parties during inter partes appeal must be disregarded by the board, unless they concern amendments during opposition or appeal, in which case the board has discretion whether or not to consider the observations in the examination of the amendments. Also when a party to the appeal…
The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court recently rendered judgement (SH2016.T-5-14) in a matter between Ametek Denmark A/S and the intellectual property consultancy Zacco Denmark A/S. As an external patent agent, Zacco had assisted Ametek in filing several patent applications regarding Ametek’s invention of a temperature calibration system. However, in an international patent application and in…
As readers know well, one of the issues carefully considered by courts around the world when examining inventive activity is the qualifications and experience of the experts designated by the parties to illustrate to the court what the understanding of the hypothetical “person skilled in the art” would have been on the priority date of…
