There seems to be ample consensus in that Justice is better administered by specialised Judges than by non-specialised Judges. With this view in mind, in 1993 the Barcelona Court of Appeal took a groundbreaking step forward by conferring exclusive competence to one section (Section 15) to hear appeals filed in intellectual property cases. The successful…
Although a number of issues were raised as to the validity of two patents in the recent Omnipharm v Merial[2001] EWHC 3393 (Pat) case, the most interesting feature of the case was the judge’s approach to the question of inventive step. The case focussed in particular on the role of the doctrine of “obvious to…
The German Federal Court of Justice recently issued a decision entitled ‘E-Mail via SMS’, November 22, 2011, X ZR 58/10, in which it was found that when seeking to improve a data structure prescribed in an international standard, a skilled person would consider mechanisms already described in the standard when solving the identified technical problem….
rospatt osten pross Motorola obtained a first instance judgement against Apple, because iPhone and iPad infringe the European patent No. 1 010 336 declared essential to the GPRS standard by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). Apple’s defence of a compulsory licence under anti-trust law failed. The German Federal Court of Justice recognised in principle that…
The Board of Appeal had to decide whether the showing of results of a database analysis as a tree diagram could contribute to the technical character of the invention. The Board of Appeal pointed out that in this case one should take a wider view of the term “presentation of information” than just the actual…
An SPC can only be granted if the product falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent. If the basic patent claims a combination of two known components (i.e. a monoclonal antibody with a neoplastic agent), that combination is the patent’s contribution to the art. An individual component is not equivalent to the…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) allowed review of the conduct of the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA), since the TBA rejected a main request for lack of inventive step which had not yet been discussed during oral proceedings. The EBA decided that the petitioner had no reason to assume that the TBA would decide…
AstraZeneca filed a request with the Patent Office (PO) for the publication in the PO’s official bullet of a court judgment invalidating a previous PO’s decision regarding the termination of one of AstraZeneca’s patents. The PO denied AstraZeneca’s request for publication due to a pending procedure for the issuance of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC)…
The question of whether or not a claim in a patent deriving from a divisional application covering or embracing something which was not specifically disclosed in the parent application, is not the proper standard for determining whether there has been an inadmissible extension of subject-matter. Although broadening of individual features is not prohibited by Art….
The Enlarged Board confirmed that a Technical Board of Appeal may refuse a request that is filed with the grounds of opposition if – upon request by the opposition division – the applicant has declined to file such a request during first instance proceedings and there is no reason why such request could not have…
