An amendment of independent patent claim 1 during prosecution introduced a new feature. According to the Examining Division this led to the combinations of features of dependent claims 2-4 to extend beyond the disclosure of the application as filed (Art. 123(2) EPC). The Board of Appeal held that the focus of the Examining Division was…
(1) The FCJ decided that if a plaintiff can prove there was an “offering” of means for the patented purposes, it can be assumed that the means were also delivered for those purposes, and that therefore the plaintiff has a right to claim damages and the provision of information due to indirect infringement. The means of proof will be sufficient even if, in cases of indirect infringement, it was only with the delivery for the patented purposes that the damages were incurred.
(2) Furthermore, when a patent is assigned during pending patent infringement proceedings, the right of the assignee to claim damages shall arise starting on the date of the assignment agreement, and not on the date of registration (contrary to the case law of the Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf). With regard to claims to damages for the time period after assignment, the plaintiff (assignor) will need to assert that payment must be made to the assignee.
Recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and USPTO decisions underscore the potential value of challenging a granted U.S. patent in a USPTO proceeding, even if the patent already has been held infringed and/or not invalid in district court litigation. In Fresenius, USA Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., the Federal Circuit interpreted the ex parte reexamination…
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…
