by Bernward Zollner The term “offering” must be understood in a broad sense. It is sufficient that the per-son who is offering draws the attention of the public to the offered object so that – clearly – advertisements or brochures can be qualified as an offer in the sense of the patent statute. In this…
Judgments from the English Courts are nowadays usually delivered in draft form and in strictest confidence from the Judge’s clerk to the parties by way of an attachment to an email. This invariably causes an anxious lawyer to open the document and to hit “Ctrl/End” to find the conclusion of the Court, followed by a…
On 10 June 2013 the Court of Appeal of Barcelona handed down a very interesting decision that appears to have written the penultimate word in the long saga of decisions discussing the meaning of “imminence.” As discussed in other blogs, although the so-called “Enforcement Directive” (Directive 2004/48/EC) was meant to strengthen the protection of intellectual…
And Richard Pratt Swarovski-Optik KG v Leica Camera AG [2013] EWHC 1227 Summary At the Patents Court before Vos J, Swarovski-Optik brought patent infringement proceedings against Leica Camera, who challenged the validity of Swarovski’s patent. The patent related to riflescopes. The judgment focused on the importance of identifying the skilled person and defining the correct…
Now is the winter of our discontent, or so some may have thought when the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) agreement was signed on 19 February of this year. The rain came mainly from Spain, which started a fresh challenge to the legality of the Unitary Patent and Language Regulations before the CJEU this spring. And…
The main principles applicable for assessing whether a non-disclosed disclaimer meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC have been laid out in the decision G 1/03 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO. In the recent decision G 2/10 dated September 19, 2011 a new test for assessing the allowability of non-disclosed disclaimers, the so called “Remaining Subject-Matter Test”, has been established. In applying this test, disclaimers which in the past would have been considered to be allowable in view of G 1/03 may now be (and actually have been)found to actually be in violation of Article 123(2) EPC.
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patents case (Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been…
Over the past months several webites have been launched that try to track and trace any and all news and documents on the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (“UPC”). Today the faithful UPC watcher has a new forum to shop: www.unified-patent-court.org. This is not just any website, but the official online outlet of the…
Jurisdiction at the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur pursuant to Article 5 (3) of Regulation EC/44/2001 can be established in a negative declaratory action even though this action seeks to declare the absence of liability in tort, as long as the relevant linking conditions are fulfilled. Click here for the full text…
There is insufficiency of disclosure if the skilled person must deliberately ignore a feature of the claim which is perfectly understandable per se in order to work the invention. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
