Co-authored by Gemma Wooden Environmental Recycling Technologies Plc v Upcycle Holdings Ltd [2013] EWPCC 4 – 5 February 2013 Summary This decision of the UK Patents County Court provides insight into the differences between UK and EPO practice. It demonstrates a possibly more lenient approach to amendments based solely on the drawings and confirms that…
The complexities of European patent architecture raise a number of issues relating to the interface between opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and infringement proceedings before national courts. A recent case has raised one of such issues, namely: what the impact should be of the revocation of the patent by the EPO in…
By decision of 21 February 2013, the Court of Turin clarified the test for prima facie case in search proceedings and the test for urgency in search proceedings and preliminary proceedings in general. In the case at issue, 4B-Four Bind had obtained an ex-parte search order aimed at inspecting post-print binding machines of competitor KGS,…
Article 123(3) EPC stipulates that a European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers. A special case of extension of the protective scope may occur in claims which define both the type of and the amount of a specific component. An issue addressed in a series…
The first-inventor-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) took effect on March 16, 2013. While the effective date provisions for the first-inventor-to-file provisions are complicated, the new laws will apply to all U.S. applications with an earliest effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, and also to U.S. applications that claim subject…
Introduction The Court of Justice of the European Union last year delivered a decision on the impact of the GAT/LuK decision on jurisdiction in preliminary infringement proceedings (Solvay/Honeywell). As the case below is continuing its way through the Dutch courts, the frequency of publications trying to make sense of the 2012 CJEU decision come down…
by Henrik Timmann There is a saying in Germany: Two lawyers add up to three different opinions. Well, for a long time the Federal Patent Court seemed to have been inspired by this saying when deciding on the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees in nullity actions. Background Most of you will know about the bifurcated system…
The French saisie-contrefaçon is known to be an extremely powerful and effective tool to collect evidence of infringement of a patent (as of any other intellectual property right, see “Saisie-contrefaçon” on Wikipedia and also P. Véron et alii, Saisie-contrefaçon, Paris, Dalloz Action, 3rd ed. 2013-2014). It is a procedure that allows to request and obtain from…
The Supreme Court held that claiming priority of an earlier application requires a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority document of all features of the technical teaching as defined in the claims. If the claimed invention is characterized by a particular property of one of its components that has not (clearly) been disclosed in…
In an appeal against a decision by the Opposition Division to maintain the patent in amended form, the Board ordered the representative of the opponent to file an authorization. The representative did not do so in due time, but indicated that the opponent would take no further action. The Board held that the legal fiction…
